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.

Who speaks for pet owners? Lloyd Levine's AB 1634 finally grinds to a halt. Now what? Clock's still ticking for dog owners everywhere. And little feet are tap, tap, tapping. Levine and his best buds, HSUS and PETA, may be nursing their wounds and looking at where they messed up for now. . .but they'll be back. In fact, PETA is calling the failure of AB 1634 during California's 2007 legislative session a mere postponement. Wayne Pacelle's Humane Society of the United States doesn't acknowledge the "postponement" at all. Deny, deny, deny. It's worked for you before, Wayne. Maybe it will again. Maybe. But Best Friends Animal Society, that out-of-control carnival ride of an animal rights organization that withheld official support for AB 1634 for months? Well, now Best Friends is singing Lloyd Levine's praises, and promising to work with him in 2008. Bad Rap plays both ends against the middle First prize for putting the most spin on the ball goes to that savvy image manipulator and San Francisco pit bull "rescue" group, Bad Rap. These are the folks that co-authored California's notorious SB 861--the brainchild of ex-Democratic State Senator Jackie Speier--so that it would be more palatable in some circles, and then made sure Bad Rap appeared on the list of opponents of the proposal they co-authored. SB 861 set the stage for AB 1634 by rolling back California's historic ban on breed profiling. It allows municipalities in California to mandate spay-neuter on a breed specific basis. Now, a year and a half after SB 861 passed into law, Bad Rap blogs. . . In San Francisco, the BSL mandatory neutering law that targets pit bulls keeps SFACC's basement kennels full. Nice dogs, most of them, but uh, caught in the act of being intact. . . And in a final Byzantine piece of hypocrisy, Bad Rap pulled its support from AB 1634 because it "strayed from its initial intent" [of mandating the surgical sterilization of virtually every pet dog and cat in the state of California]. After Lloyd Levine amended, re-amended, and re-re-amended it during its final days, AB 1634 was too watered down for Bad Rap's taste. Why should pit bulls "caught in the act of being intact" have all the fun in basement kennels across the state of California, right? Why not spread the joy? Good thinking, Bad Rap. Any and all dogs (and cats) in California could and should suffer the same fate as the pit bulls you sold down the river. Excellent. Keeping the spotlight on those nasty, nasty, nasty, money-grubbing tax-cheat breeders from hell The one thing that every organization mentioned above agrees on: its all down to "breeders." "Breeders"--whether commercial, backyard, irresponsible, criminal, abusive, accidental, exploitative--its all their fault. "Breeders" stopped Lloyd Levine's AB 1634, according to the Best Friends, Bad Rap, PETA and the rest. And the American Kennel Club pretty much agrees. Lying trampled in the dust: pet dog and cat owners So, while the AKC and the animal extremists indulge in a free and frank exchange of view points, pet owners are left wondering who the hell represents them. With good reason. The over-whelming majority of pet owners already, voluntarily, sterilize their animals. Most pet owners have no practical need for "breeding rights" and few nurse the desire for an intact dog or cat. All the logic and facts presented by the many good and caring people who opposed AB 1634 won't mean jack-shit if typical pet owners are not wooed and won in the near future. And let's face it, there's not a whole bunch for pet owners to cuddle up to coming from the AKC. On the other hand, I've yet to meet a pet owner that believed the state of California could do a better job than they can themselves when it comes to veterinary care decisions for their pets. Stupid is as stupid does. Now, we know Lloyd Levine thinks pet owners are stupid. They are competent to make decisions about their own health care, but not smart enough to make decisions for their dogs and cats. Wayne Pacelle thinks pet owners are stupid, too? Yup. He sure does. HSUS & Co. aims at the hearts, minds, wallets. . . not to mention the ballots. . . of the vast, vast majority of dog and cat owners. And they're doing it by keeping the spotlight focused on those nasty, criminal, etc., "breeders." Let's just hope the Forces of Good wake up, and stop taking the bait. Maybe loosen up those corsets a little. January will be here before we know it. Waking the sleeping giant? Tom Hogen-Esch, a political scientist at Cal State Northridge, said the Levine bill woke a sleeping giant. "That type of legislation Americans find extremely intrusive, so it really sparked a backlash," Hogen-Esch said. . . . [Bill Hemby of PetPac said] The pet owners realized that they had been sitting on the sidelines watching their rights erode and not doing anything about it." B I N G O! Hooray, Bill Hemby! There's a 4,000 lb. elephant parked in the livingroom, folks. Better roll out the welcome mat. NOW! Who speaks for pet owners? Not Wayne Pacelle, not Lloyd Levine. Not Ingrid Newkirk, Bob Barker or William Shatner. "The Fancy"? Better do something about that elitist image, honey. "For the love of the purebred dog" doesn't play well with pet owners, and neither do exemptions from unreasonable restrictions just for "show dogs." Sadly, not the Democratic Party. At least not yet, it doesn't. Who speaks for pet owners? Pet owners like us do!

Battling for Control of Your Dog's Balls: New York Bill O'Reilly stands up for dog owners and property rights. Where the hell are the Dems? Jersey resident and dedicated dog owner Pete Georgoutsos finally, finally, finally got his dog bailed out of the NYC pound--in ONE piece. Price of a little temporary freedom for a dog and dog owner that did nothing wrong? $10,000 for a bond, which Georgoutsos was obliged to post in cash, as he defends his dog from NYC's mandatory castration requirement. The meter is still ticking on his attorney's fees. Picked up stray after a bungled robbery attempt set him loose, Spartacus the dog waited over a month--impounded in a public shelter. Two hearings were held because Georgoutsos refused to let the City of New York castrate his dog pursuant to city ordinances. NYC Gonad Nazis remain hellbent on enforcing a local requirement that all dogs and cats undergo surgical sterilization before release from city shelters. The requirement applies to animals claimed by their lawful owners, and it applies even if the animal was in the city temporarily and even if the animal was impounded only because a crime was committed against the owner. Holding pets hostage, blackmailing dog owners "The city would not let me see my dog for three weeks," Georgoutsos said, "and it was getting really ugly. "They said if I didn't neuter my dog he would be put up for adoption or euthanized. They were using Gestapo techniques." Georgoutsos maintains that the dog's health deteriorated during the impoundment period. Spokespeople for New York's CACC? Unmoved. Judges know extortion when they see it Brooklyn Supreme Court Judge Arthur Schack doesn't mince words: We'll hold [Spartacus] hostage and then we'll kill him," said Schack. "That's what it sounds like. Judge Schack ordered the dog released, testicles and all. It took another couple of weeks of bickering, and $10,000 in cash, but Spartacus is now back home in New Jersey. The City is appealing the ruling, and it appears that Georgoutsos will be back in court this fall. Property rights on trial: Bill O'Reilly says a mouthful It took arch-conservative Bill freaking O'Reilly to point out the obvious: this just ain't right. The Factor was stunned by the episode. "We're supposed to be free in this country. If you have a dog and the government is saying you have to have him neutered, I think that's a violation of your freedom." Ok, this is painful for a liberal-type like me, but. . O'Reilly's right. That little bit of canine real estate that the City of New York wants to chop off and send to nearest landfill? It belongs to Pete Georgoutsos. City Councilman Peter Vallone: Oooops. We didn't mean it like that. The NYC law's author, that self-described animal rights activist and city councilman Peter Vallone Jr., found himself in a little bit of a jam over dog laws. Again. The judge is mad. The dog owner is mad. Bill O'Reilly is mad.

The people of the City of New York are mad.

"We never anticipated anything like this," Councilman Peter Vallone told the Daily News last week. "This is someone from out of state. It's not his fault the animal was loose." Oh, puh-leeze. Something like 40 million people visit the Big Apple each year. Do ya think Pete Georgoutsos is the first one to lose a dog, Councilman? Do you think this was the first time a dog was impounded through no fault of the owner?

Then there's the even lamer reasoning from MissionOrangeWorld--

ASPCA just makes shit up "Lisa Weisberg, a senior vice president at the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in New York, said she doesn't believe the law applies to Spartacus. "If the person (owner) is just passing through the city for whatever reason, the spay-neutering requirement does not apply," she said. Uhhh, Lisa? The law doesn't say that. There is no "whatever" clause. The Whatever Legal Theory But let me get this straight. . .

According to the ASPCA's deeply orange rhetoric, its imperative--VITAL-- to neuter each and every loose dog because loose dogs are a public safety threat, and they spawn bazillions of puppy-dogs each year.

[Note that in the few hours he was loose, Spartacus didn't harm anyone. In fact, since the--by all reports very friendly--dog was hit with five tranquilizer darts before being brought to the shelter, I'm thinking he didn't have much of an opportunity for romance, either.]

Is "just passing through for whatever reason" a legal concept? Do residents of the City of New York somehow have fewer property rights than people who are "just passing through for whatever reason"?

Maybe Jerseyites have superior legal status for a reason, Ms. Weisberg?

Did Lisa Weisberg make sure that "just passing through" concept is included in the bill that the ASPCA is right this very minute promoting in Albany? NYS Assembly Bill 8032 mandates that every single dog or cat released by a "city" shelter must be surgically sterilized. There's no "whatever" clause. In fact, I don't even see the exceptions for so-called show dogs in the current New York City local law.

Footloose in the Big Apple

I agree that dogs shouldn't run loose on the mean streets of New York, by the way. They might get run over by an ASPCA paddywagon. Heck, they might even . . . wind up on Animal Planet and get blasted by another judge.

And that wouldn't be cool.

Or would it?

Life in a "free" country

Bill O'Reilly said it best: we're supposed to be living in a free country. Dog owners cannot be forced to neuter their dogs because the dog was picked up stray or impounded. Those dogs, and all their little pieces and parts, belong to their owners. New Jersey's Pete Georgoustos is a perfect example of how ridiculous, how useless, and how unfair the NYC law is. Councilman Vallone's Long Hot Summer But since all politics is local, we'll be checking back on NYC Councilman Peter Vallone this fall. Already an infamous pit bull hater and profiler of pit bull owners, how's he going to defend the assault on the personal property of all New Yorkers -- and every once in a while, a Jersey boy -- that he championed, anyway? See ya in September, Councilman Vallone. You're gonna have a little more 'splaining to do.

Dems Karnette & Richardson Dance with the Devil . . . and blow off dog and cat owners Will a pact with PETA and HSUS save them when election season rolls around? True Blue California pet owners are waiting for Republicans to save their bacon from the flames of hell. What's wrong with that picture? When the dust finally settled in Sacramento, the tally for the California Assembly's final vote on Lloyd Levine's extreme and misguided bill requiring the surgical sterilization of every single pet dog and cat in the state of California was pathetic. 100% of Republican Assemblymembers voted against AB 1634, and in support of loving pet owners who think they're competent to make their own veterinary care decisions. Six lonely Democrats had the nerve to vote against Levine's Testicle Eradication proposal. To all of the rest of them: Hang your heads in shame * Arambula, Juan (D-Fresno) AD 31 * Bass, Karen (D-Los Angeles) AD 47 * Beall, Jim (D-San Jose) AD 24 * Berg, Patty (D-Eureka) AD 1 * Brownley, Julia (D-Santa Monica) AD 41 * Carter, Wilmer (D-Rialto) AD 62 * Coto, Joe (D-San Jose) AD 23 * Davis, Mike (D-Los Angeles) AD 48 * De La Torre, Hector (D-South Gate) AD 50 * de León, Kevin (D-Los Angeles) AD 45 * De Saulnier, Mark (D-Martinez) AD 11 * Dymally, Mervyn (D-Los Angeles) AD 52 * Eng, Mike (D-Monterey Park) AD 49 * Evans, Noreen (D-Santa Rosa) AD 7 * Feuer, Mike (D-Los Angeles) AD 42 * Fuentes, Filipe (D-Sylmar) AD 39 * Galgiani, Cathleen (D-Tracy) AD 17 * Hancock, Loni (D-Berkeley) AD 14 * Hayashi, Mary (D-Hayward) AD 18 * Hernandez, Ed (D-Baldwin Park) AD 57 * Huffman, Jared (D-San Rafael) AD 6 * Jones, Dave (D-Sacramento) AD 9 * Karnette, Betty (D-Long Beach) AD 54 * Krekorian, Paul (D-Burbank) AD 43 * Laird, John (D-Santa Cruz) AD 27 * Leno, Mark (D-San Francisco) AD 13 * Levine, Lloyd (D-Van Nuys) AD 40 * Lieber, Sally (D-Mountain View) AD 22 * Lieu, Ted (D-Torrance) AD 53 * Mullin, Gene (D-South San Francisco) AD 19 * Nava, Pedro (D-Santa Barbara) AD 35 * Núñez, Fabian (D-Los Angeles) AD 46 * Portantino, Anthony (D-Pasadena) AD 44 * Price, Jr., Curren (D-Inglewood) AD 51 * Richardson, Laura (D-Long Beach) AD 55 * Ruskin, Ira (D-Redwood City) AD 21 * Salas, Mary (D-Chula Vista) AD 79 * Saldaña, Lori (D-San Diego) AD 76 * Solorio, Jose (D-Anaheim) AD 69 * Torrico, Alberto (D-Fremont) AD 20 * Wolk, Lois (D-Davis ) AB 8 The Devil wears a West Coast tan So what did Bob Barker whisper into Democratic ears? And did those Dems know where those lips had been? "From all of us at PETA, cheers to you Bob Barker." Do California pet dog and cat owners, including the La-La Land types that earned themselves a little free publicity by coming out as animal extremists, understand what's at stake? Has anybody bothered to explain to them that the Gonad Nazis will be dropping by their homes, too? This struggle is not about "breeding rights." The overwhelming majority of owned dogs and cats in California are already, voluntarily, sterilized. Their owners have no interest in breeding them. If anybody managed to ask the right question, though, cat and dog owners would be clear on who should be making decisions about health care for their pets. This struggle is about taking yet another option away from pet owners, and making yet another lawful, responsible choice in some circumstances illegal. Lesson learned during Round One of California's Testicle War Democratic elected representatives like Karnette and Richardson are ready to break promises if the kitchen gets too hot. Not what most people are looking for in a public official, is it? Laura Richardson thinks she's got the stuff for a career in the U. S. Congress. She's going to have to deal with disillusioned Long Beach pet owners, first. And irate Long Beach business people who stand to lose a lot of money if the AKC makes good on threats to move the Eukanuba show out of the city. Message to the AKC: Speak softly, carry a big stick. And every once in a while? You're gonna have to swing that stick, baby. The amendment game: who spins the wheel? The California Veterinary Medicine Association, apparently in response to the howls of protest from member veterinarians who aren't ready to abandon their ethics the way the CVMA itself did, is now backing a "spay or pay" amendment to the proposal it co-sponsored.

Civil rights and liberties: available if the Price is Right

Under a "spay or pay" ordinance, if you've got enough money, you just might be able to buy yourself-- and your dog or cat-- out of a nasty situation.

Basically, wealthier people could purchase more civil rights for themselves than the next guy.

Let's see if California Democrats can spot the fly in that ointment. Standing up for the little guy: no longer a Democratic Party ideal Will liberal and progressive Dems let Republicans continue to eat their lunch? While Republicans broaden their appeal among lower and middle-income voters, California Democrats are busy pretending they can't hear their own constituents. The (Republican) Governator is already distancing himself from Levine's mandatory castration scheme. He has the sense to avoid catching a finger in that buzz-saw. In the meantime, Dems are so busy dancing to a beat called out by animal extremists and special interests, they just don't care how extremely divisive, controversial and misguided Lloyd Levine's bill is. That's a problem. Blowing off voters, with November 08 getting closer and closer, just isn't smart. It leaves a sour taste in the mouths of Democratics.

They're beginning to feel a touch devilish themselves.

Ship of Fools: Dems do animal law Do they have a any clue at all about where they're headed? New York: Full speed ahead, straight into HSUS's hands New York's new governor, Eliot Spitzer, arrived in Albany with the backing of a whopping 69% of the vote, and he promised a "new brand" of politics to true blue New Yorkers. Saddled with the most dysfunctional state legislature in the country, Spitzer promised no more "pay to play" in Albany! Lobbying and campaign finance reform! That was steamrollin, cement-mixin Spitzer's commitment to the people of New York. But a funny thing happened to Eliot on his way to the work one day. HSUS acolyte League of Humane Voters-NYC, and the seduction of the New York State Democratic Committee Earlier in May, the New York State Democratic Party signed on to a "resolution in support of animal protection legislation." Unable to restrain the purple prose, animal extremist-affiliated League of Humane Voters-NYC, gushed: In a move which the League of Humane Voters of New York City is calling "historic" and "precedent-setting," the New York State Democratic Party adopted a resolution at its spring meeting on Wednesday affirming its commitment to the humane treatment of animals. . . the state Democratic Party's precedent-setting action in support of animal protection is not only the right thing to do, it's also intelligent politically. . . Animal protection roller coaster revs into gear: intelligent politically? or bullshit, panderingly? The Humane Society of the United States is the world's largest, wealthiest animal rights , animal welfare , animal protection conglomerate. HSUS owns the "animal protection" business. So, let's just take a look at the resolution adopted by the New York State Democratic Committee at the request of the League of Humane Voters of NYC. The resolution reads. . .

• ". . .hundreds of thousands of animals are tortured and killed in New York each year. . .

Say what? "Hundreds of thousands" of animals tortured and killed every year? Just in New York? We're not talking bugs squished on windshields, are we? If this vision of carnage were substantiated in any way, it would be a screaming indictment of the ASPCA. New York's network of privately controlled, privately managed societies for the prevention of cruelty contract for humane law enforcement across the state. New York suffers from an unsupervised animal control and humane law enforcement system that needs an ethics overhaul yesterday. Or maybe LOHV is making a not-so-sly reference to hunting, particularly deer hunting, in New York State? There are around 650,000 deer hunters in the state, and they already have problems with some high-profile Democrats in New York. The resolution continues. . .

• "there are too few laws to protect animals. . ."

In New York? Arguably the most over-legislated state (second to California, naturally) in the country? Hello? Competent, impartial enforcement of animal welfare provisions, not to mention training, oversight and funding for both staff and programs, are different issues altogether. But not enough laws? Give me a break. No one is shy about putting pen to paper in New York. Twenty three pages on cruelty to animals, and I think the site needs updating.

Stereotyping 650,000 New Yorkers as maniacal sociopaths: political intelligence?

The NYS Democratic Committee signed on to a resolution which profiles hunters as sadistic blood-thirsty drunks competing in slaughter contests. It conjures up the image of trophy-hunters killing drugged up, elderly, trapped circus animals.

The resolution is an animal extremist wet dream. Was signing on to it "political intelligence" on the part of the NYS Democratic Party? Or is something else going on here?

Republicans are from Mars. Dems? What's PETA's home planet?

Ed Boks Partitions the Universe

Ed Boks, the General Manager of the City of Los Angeles Animal Services, is a huge proponent of Lloyd Levine's draconian, counterproductive proposal to surgically sterilize every pet dog and cat in the state of California at 16 weeks of age.

But you knew that.

Edward R. Murrow, MacNeil & Lehrer, and now. .Ed Boks?

Turns out that Ed Boks also does political reporting and commentary. He's a political pundit! Who knew?

Boks explains that Levine's AB 1634 "squarely aligns with both Republican and Democratic core values" and writes:

I personally appreciate Republican core values of fiscal responsibility, smaller more efficient government, and the protection of personal property rights. . .[but] Pets are not like refrigerators or motorcycles. Pets can suffer.

So there you have it: Republicans = Cash. Democrats = Love, truth, beauty and all that is good in the world.

Its all so neat and tidy.

And so freaking twisted.

You're either with "us" or against "us". Rank and file Democrats walk the plank

As the Democratic Party creeps its way towards an animal extremist agenda, long-time Democratic voters are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Forced to choose between (a) providing for their beloved pets and companions according to their own best judgement, or (b) extreme, irrational "remedies" like Lloyd Levine's vision of a testicle-free California, jumping ship is looking better every day.

Do I have to buy into the whole "hunters are demented maniacs driven by bloodlust" thing to be politically correct?

Can I still wear leather and vote the party ticket?

Do I have to give up my dog? My Dog Votes, and he's not liking what the Democratic Party has on offer these days.

So, am I still a Democrat?

Hey, Jersey grrls and boyz! Ready to give up your dog? NJ State Assemblyman Neil Cohen: Confused? Misled? Or just one more animal extremist lackey Democrat? Democrat sells out dog owners. Again. Neil Cohen, the staunch Democrat representing blue collar, ethnically diverse Union Township and Elizabeth, New Jersey--just across the river from Staten Island--strayed from his trail of bread crumbs in a big way. Cohen recently sponsored a proposal allowing owners to sue for compensation for their own emotional pain and suffering if their pet gets sick or dies after eating contaminated pet food. Under the proposal, owners could sue veterinarians, groomers, pet food stores and pet food manufacturers, and there are no limits to the amounts they can demand. To a many, this might sound like a good thing. The recent outbreak of melamine contamination in some pet foods caused illness and even the deaths of cherished companions. It scared pet owners everywhere, and exposed a need for oversight and quality control in imported food stuffs. But Cohen's bill has devastating implications for dog owners. Neil Cohen and the Law of Unintended Consequences Introduced to the New Jersey legislature on May 14 and heard in committee almost immediately, Cohen's A4217 would shake the foundations of pet ownership if enacted. Things don't always turn out as planned. The proposal sets up a dramatic increase in veterinary care costs, because vets would be forced to dramatically increase their malpractice coverage. It would also increase the cost of pet food and pet services, since any business that manufactures, sells or dispenses pet food will also need to increase their liability coverage in a big way. The cost for all of this will inevitably be passed on to the consumer. The pet owner. You and me. Does Democrat Cohen, whose district's per capita income falls far below the average for New Jersey, have any concerns about the impact his proposal will have on the wallets in his own constituency? Any at all? Or does he believe that only "people like us" should own pets? But in addition to pricing people out of owning a pet, and making it even more difficult to afford veterinary care, A4217 has another special feature buried deep within language attached to the original proposal. Enslavement? Chattel? I treat my dog like a slave? Are you freakin' kidding me? A4217 included language that reasoned. . . “establishment of a statutory right of legal action to recover economic and non-economic damages …..would overcome the antiquated common law notion that a pet animal is chattel…..” Translation: the bill's supporters endorse guardianship. Hand your dog over to the State of New Jersey Assemblyman Cohen might be hoping no one noticed--or maybe he didn't notice himself--but that's what the bill is all about. Here's the hitch: it may sound kinder and gentler to insist that pets are not lowly "property". But think about it: if you don't own your dog. . . who's in charge? If the State of New Jersey decides to seize all pit bulls and kill them--like they do in Denver and Miami--guess what? If your dog doesn't actually belong to you, there's not much you can do to stop them. The last defense, the last hope of stopping the State of New Jersey from marching into your home and seizing your dog in this scenario would be the protection of private property afforded by the U. S. Constitution. Which Neil Cohen and his supporters, under the reasoning provided for A4217, undermines. Elizabeth, New Jersey. . .Vegan paradise? I think its fair to say that veganism is not a traditional value in places like Elizabeth and Union, New Jersey. Local residents are going to be pretty surprised to learn that their Assemblyman listened to animal extremist organizations like the Animal Legal Defense Fund and sponsored a bill which will make it harder--not easier--to bring home the bacon. To quote the ASPCA's reasoning on their endorsement of guardianship and their shift to a clearly animal extremist position:

“By viewing animals as more than mere property, the focus shifts from the ownership interest in the animal to what is in the best interest of that individual animal. . . For example, can we continue to use animals in medical research and for human consumption and still consider ourselves their guardians? These practices certainly are not in the animals’ best interests, nor do they respect them as separate and unique entities. . ."

Now don't get me wrong. Even though I eat meat and I wear leather, I'm a truly pro-choice Democrat.

I believe that what's for dinner is a matter of personal taste and opinion.

Not a matter of law. To each his (or her) own, right? Will the voters in Cohen's district mostly agree with me on that? I think so.

So what's going on here? Who got to Neil Cohen? Bada-bing bada-boom, Neil!

Better get out the magnifying glass and find that trail of bread crumbs fast, Assemblyman Cohen. You sponsored a proposal that is not going to go down easily with your constituency. In fact, special interests and animal extremism fall clear off the party platform. Or they used to, anyway. Stuff like this, plus Lloyd Levine and his antics in California, really makes me wonder. Are we still Democrats?

Crying Crocodile Tears for Pit Bulls Best Friends Animal Society's Pre-emptive Strike on Massachusetts Lining up behind misunderstanding, fear and bigotry. Its like taking candy from a baby. Especially when you've got a mother lode of junk science to back you up, and the ready cash to do it in style. Best Friends' Pre-emptive Strike Best Friends Animal Society, the chaotic, incoherent "largest animal sanctuary in the country" with a reported income of over $32 million in donations and Democratic Party strategist Joe Trippi to light the way, is churning out misinformation on both dogs and dog owners.

So get ready, Massachusetts. It's your turn at bat. Best Friends is offering their guidelines for a pre-emptive approach to dangerous dog control to your elected representatives.

And don't be fooled by the pious rhetoric about how breed bans just aren't right. Best Friends "acknowledges that there are dangerous breeds" that have "aggressive tendencies bred into their genes [sic]."

Truth in Advocacy?

Not this time. Pandering to the public's worst fears, and hiding behind the smokescreen of junk science and twisted statistics, Best Friends joins the ranks of institutional killers-with-kindness PETA and HSUS, all to further their own agenda.

And by the way, Wayne Pacelle of the Humane Society of the United States may have gotten caught in a little fib delivered to the U. S. Congress last week. A little science can be a very dangerous thing indeed.

Best Friends Animal Society's May 14 press release lip-syncs PETA/HSUS lies and misrepresentations almost perfectly by presenting a list of out-of-context, unsourced statistics and one-time-only studies, along with correlations which prove nothing. Best Friends is trying to pass off a nightmare of conjecture and manipulation as hard fact.

Repeat after me: correlation is not causation

As a wise man pointed out, colored lights placed on homes in mid-December don't cause snow to fall. Even if colored lights precede snowfall 99.9% of the time.

Science? Puh-leeze. Best Friends tells us that. . .

82% of all dog bites occur when dogs are off leash or not confined in some way.

Wrong. The often-quoted, rarely read CDC study on dog bite related fatalities mentions that 82% figure. But the study covered fatalities, not all dog bites as Best Friends would have us believe. Its conclusion specifically warns that since dog bite-related fatalities are rare, the data should not be used as a primary factor in determining public policy on dangerous dogs. Tricksy Best Friends. Trying to scare us with misquoted data. Was the intention to heighten fears of loose dogs (and interest in Best Friends' plan)? Or did they just get it wrong? 90% of fatal dog attacks are by dogs that are not spayed or neutered. This "fact" appears to stem from statistics created by Karen Delise, a licensed veterinary technician who received a grant from Animal Farm Foundation. Animal Farm Foundation supports mandatory spay-neuter legislation. The 90% figure does not coincide with anything released by the CDC. So, Karen Delise, the licensed veterinary technician, or the peer-reviewed studies published by qualified researchers and Centers for Disease Control. Which would you quote? Dogs that are chained are 2.8 times more likely to be aggressive. Spokespeople for both the CDC and the AVMA reject this popular piece of internet scholarship. It appears to derive from a single study that did not rule out the possibility that the dogs were tethered precisely because they had demonstrated behavioral issues, and identified several other stronger correlations for frequency of dog bites. That correlation/causation problem. Again. So, who's at fault ? Dog OWNERS Of course, of course. Nicely mimicking logic from the ASPCA (an organization which just recently stepped out of the animal rights closet itself) , Best Friends does a good job of placing the blame for dog bites at the feet of, who else, "irresponsible, criminal, cruel" dog owners.

How to fix the problem of irresponsible, criminal, cruel dog owners? Well, according to the ASPCA, words count. And the word is guardian.

"By viewing animals as more than mere property, the focus shifts from the ownership interest in the animal to what is in the best interest of that individual animal. This altered view of animals necessarily requires that we treat them with greater respect and compassion . . .rather than [as]an “owner,” who has title to and dominion over the animal for the owner’s enjoyment and benefit as he/she sees fit. The result of this paradigm shift will foster better protections for animals, as well as the development of a more respectful and humane society."

Harvesting the lowest hanging fruit: crackhead criminal gangbanging pit bull owners are easy pickings.

Remember HSUS representative Pam Rogers' letter to the members of Metro Louisville City Council? The one where she smeared pit bull owners, and their dogs, by characterizing them as ". . . the dogs of choice for drug dealers, gang members, and anyone else who is looking for a dog to be a status symbol"? In Louisville, enactment of the worst animal control ordinance in the country started with a move to ban pit bulls. California's AB 1634, requiring the surgical castration of all pet dogs (and cats) in the state? Its precursor was SB 861, which allowed breed specific mandatory sterilization and rolled back California's historic ban on breed profiling. First, and only, casualty of SB 861 so far? Pit bulls. NYC Councilman Peter Vallone's proposal to restrict tethering? Vallone's first move was an attempted ban on pit bulls. Win the pit bull battle, but lose the dog ownership war That's where this is headed, folks. Guardianship. Mandatory sterilization. Tethering and breeding restrictions. Its all in Best Friends Animal Society's pre-emptive strike.

And count on it, "pit bull" owners and breeders: those pit bull-type dogs with their nasty genes are very much on Best Friends' radar. "Bans on breeding and training dogs for aggression"? That one's just for you, baby. Vincent Pedone (D-Worcester): What's his cut in this deal? What's pit bull hating Democrat Pedone's bottom line?

Will he continue to participate in a coordinated attack on dog owners? Does he relish the thought of dog ownership in Massachusetts reduced to conditional custody of sterilized animals like California's Lloyd Levine apparently does? Maybe he aspires to the title of Animal Extremist Poop-boy, East Coast Division? Is Vincent Pedone ready to give up his dog?