Progressive Dems Stand Up For Us Little Guys? Ha! Preferred progressive netroots attitude: "Let 'em eat cake."

Good gawd. "Liberal" Democrats might as well be Republican operatives, based on the preferred political posture on fave Dem hang outs. Roughly 45% of households in the U. S. include a dog, and lots of them are having trouble finding housing, buying insurance, and more. How many times can you tell folks you don't give a shit about their problems? How long before voters connect the dots and decide life as a Democrat doesn't make sense any more? Daily Kos crowd: "Suck it up, ya buncha sissies."

Your civil rights aren't my problem.

The general dKos response to the routine discrimination many dog owners face when it comes to purchasing homeowner's insurance: "get a new damn dog".

Now why didn't JFK think of that? Why didn't Kennedy just tell James Meredith to forget about Ole Miss and get a new damn university? Maybe Rosa Parks just needed to find herself a new damn way home, too. Right? So much trouble could be avoided if people would just sit down and shut up--like dKos thinks a good Democrat should. Bill Richardson sells his soul to special interest groups. Yound and restless Dems counter with: "Yeah? . . .So?" As advertised, Bill Richardson--the Democratic Party's Great Latino Presidential Hope--tipped his hand back in December with his "Ten Point Animal Protection Package". The package calls for $ 3.6 million in taxpayer funds to get tossed into an Animal Rights pork barrel critical need to oversee the state of animal welfare, etc., in the Land of Dis Enchantment. During an address to a joint session of the New Mexico legislature on February 14, Richardson reportedly confirmed his intolerance of doggy testicles and other reproductive equipment when he announced support of New Mexico H1106 . The "Pet Owner Responsibility Act" mandated surgical sterilization for all dogs over six months of age in the state of New Mexico. Pro choice? maybe not so much a Democratic value Ironic that so many Dems are ready to go to the mat defending the rights of women to make reproductive choices, yet they have no problem denying the same people the right to make veterinary care decisions about their dogs. Slicing and dicing dog parts over the objections of the people who live with and care for the dogs? Not a problem for many Dems, based on comments like "the law is overkill in some areas but understandable. . .pet ownership is a privilege, not a right."

uhhhh. . .Wrong!

Dems surrender civil rights without a peep

What slows down bigots and political opportunists like NYC Councilman Peter Vallone Jr. , or City of Denver Assistant Attorney Kory Nelson, aka Denver's Doctor of Death, and keeps them from simply sending the stormtroopers to haul my blameless dog out of my house and kill him is his status as my property.

My last defense against that kind of fascism is my ability to protect what is mine. Upheld by bazillions of court decisions. Protected by the Bill of Rights. Located in the U. S. Constitution.

So before anyone starts with that "you-can't-own-your-dog-he's-not-a-rock-or-a-chair-that's-slavery" bullshit, you had better think over what, exactly, you're tampering with.

On the other hand, though, there are a couple of Democrats who appear to get it. For example. . . .

Gun-toting, meat-eating, dog-loving Brian Schweitzer

The Governor of Montana earned himself a national reputation as a new-age Democrat. Takes his dog to work, too! Hell, he's even got a sense of humor.

As battle lines formed, Brian Schweitzer placed himself firmly on the side of the angels, and against the further erosion of our right to privacy, as the legislature of the state of Montana overwhelmingly adopted Montana Senate Joint Resolution Number 19, decrying the loss of civil rights and liberties suffered under the Bush Administration's Patriot Act.

Res. 19 exhorts agents and instrumentalities of the State of Montana not to"record, file, or share intelligence information concerning a person or organization. . .if the action violates constitutionally guaranteed civil rights or civil liberties. . . "

Does it get any better?

Well. . .

In the brilliant blue City of New York, New York New Yorkers aren't going with the "get a new damn dog" recommendation, either. In fact, Democrat Pete Vallone is set to take a beating on what could be the blunder of his career.

After all, does anything say "eat shit and die" to a voter more concisely than a politician that blends racial profiling with a policy set to kill the family dog?

"Get another damn dog?" I'm thinking that's not going to be a winning strategy for grassroots Democrats. How long before New Yorkers take their 31 electoral votes and shop for someone who, ahem, represents them?

Kossacks hellbent on pissing off Democratic voters So, does it matter if some of the Democratic Party's most visible personalities, not to mention their netroot cheerleaders, are more than a little fuzzy on civil rights?

In between the gloating over Dub-yuh's inability to do anything right and the high-fiving over Barack Obama, do Kossacks have any time for the people who actually vote?

That "pet ownership is a privilege, not a right" crap should send Kossacks screaming and falling over each other in a frenzy to put some distance between themselves and the miscreant that came up with it.

Unless they're planning on surrendering their dogs, too.

So are you? Are you ready to surrender your dog in the name of the Democratic Party?

yeah.

I'm talkin' to you.

Equal Rights! We're all for Equal Rights! Truth and justice for all. . . Isn't that the way it goes? Equal rights for women, gays and lesbians, blacks, hispanics, the disabled, pit bull owners, religious minorities, Asian-Americans. . . Oooops--hold on a sec. We seem to have lost someone. What pit bull owners already know: Some people are way more equal than others. You may not have realized it, but this country is busy constructing a brand-new set of second class citizens. Law-abiding owners of certain dogs are rapidly vanishing from the Equal Rights radar screen. What's up with that, anyway? Here's a little sampling of what pit bull owners are looking at-- Privacy? not for pit bull owners Eden, North Carolina, Police Chief Gary Benthin's genius plan was to maintain police files on citizens who have committed no crimes--including their photographs, physical descriptions and places of employment. Why? Because they own pit bulls. Housing? No place at the inn I Find Properties.com , a rent-to-own specialist in Las Vegas, Nevada, pretty much summarizes the prevailing attitude in their FAQ section :

Can I have pets ? You can have any animal(s) unless:

• You are getting into a condo. Some condo associations have weight restrictions. . . .
• You own a pit-bull. We have no issues with pit-bulls. We love pit-bulls! We don't care how well behaved your pit-bull is. Even if your pit-bull uses the toilet and serves tea with a bow-tie, we can't help you. . .

Here's an experiment for you: Substitute the racial or ethnic group of your choice for the words "pit bull" in the above statement. How's it feel? Muzzles (n.pl.): no right to live without Welcome to Hannibal Lechter's domain. In a world where image is everything, its hard to imagine a more devastating form of discrimination than mandatory muzzling. Places like Boston make pit bull owners muzzle their dogs and put "beware of dog" signs on their homes (lettering no less than 2" high). There are other restrictions on pit bull owners, too. "Its not the dogs, its the owners" Talk about a mantra that backfired in a big way. The "its the owners" concept allows self-serving, dog-hating bigots like NYC Councilman Peter Vallone Jr. (D-Queens) to trash both dogs, and their owners, in a single breath. He wants to kick pit bulls out of the Big Apple, and the distinctly racist rhythm of his modest proposal goes : "Dogs are often the weapon of choice of drug dealers and gangs seeking to intimidate and terrorize neighborhoods." So its the pit bulls that have to go. And their meth lab-operating, gang-banging, juvenile delinquent owners can take a hike, too. I hear pit bull owners don't put the toilet seat down after they pee, by the way. Who needs 'em, anyway? Managing stigma, pit bull owner-style Its not your imagination. Discrimination is a reality for pit bull owners, and it is not easy to live with. In fact, the very special people at Tufts University did a study on social deviancy pit bull owners. Managing the stigma of "outlaw" breeds found that . . . ". . .[in ] negative portrayal of pit bulls have been depictions of their "owners" that threaten mainstream America. Media reports of attacks by these dogs were invariably accompanied by value-laden descriptions of their owners as people whom "average citizens" might find dangerous. According to Hearne (1991), these reports often described pit bull owners as white thugs or poor urban blacks and Latinos who kept their dogs in dope dens and fed them raw meat to make them as mean as possible.' But "stigma" is not the issue here. We're not talking about the heartbreak of psoriasis. We're talking about civil rights, and "truth and justice for all". The concept that justice is blind, and that we are all equal under the law. Pit bull owners aren't thugs, deviants and dope dealers. . . Pit bull owners are coal mine canaries. Marginalize pit bull owners at your own peril, because once pit bull owners are definitively stripped of their rights, such as. . . --their right to due process and equal protection under the law, which breed specific laws like California's its-ok-to-require-mandatory-castration-just-of-pit-bulls is all about, or -- their right to privacy--impossible to protect where breed specific mandatory microchipping is the law, or --their right to assert ownership because of "guardianship" laws which allow their property--which would be their pit bull dogs--from simply being seized and destroyed by freaks like Tom Skeldon in Toldeo, Ohio . . . . . .then we will all be so seriously screwed that it won't matter any more. Really. Kicking pit bull owners to the curb is wrong. For many reasons. And equal rights count. They count a lot.

Humane Profiling: Caring enough to vilify and discriminate Kentucky Humane Society's kinder, gentler approach to breed extermination The Louisville Courier-Journal coverage reads like a humaniac seduction scene from hell. Just reach for those rose-tinted glasses, and you might almost believe the good intentions. However. . . Kentucky Humane Society is selling out dog owners In 2006 the Humane Society of the United States and Democratic City Councilwoman Cheri Bryant Hamilton (over the opposition of every credible animal-related organization in the country) fought and failed to legislatively profile dog owners and their dogs and restrict or ban "pit bulls" (and a variety of other breeds). KHS is implementing Plan B--the kinder, gentler, breed specific freebie castration approach. Why? KHS says that intact dogs are a "public safety risk". Interesting that KHS's news release didn't address all dogs in Louisville, though. Just "pit bulls." Why else? KHS says there is a "overpopulation" of dogs in the area. Not all dogs, though. Just "pit bulls." What constitutes an "overpopulation", and what created it? The KHS press release didn't say. Crocodile tears for pit bulls While researching for this blog I scanned a year's worth of KHS newsletters. There were pictures of big dogs, little dogs, hairy dogs, houndy dogs, white dogs, black dogs, old dogs, young dogs. . .but not one picture of what was appeared to be a pit bull. KHS's Petfinder listing today doesn't show any pit bulls up for adoption, either. How very odd. This is an organization striving to do the right thing for pit bulls? Where are the pit bulls? KHS seems to deny any possibility of showing pit bulls in a positive light, or as adoptable dogs. Are they only interested in permanently removing pit bulls from the gene pool? Yeesh. Talk about "one generation and out." HSUS Pres and CEO Wayne Pacelle would be so very proud. Kentucky Humane's burned bridges and broken faith with dog owners Last year, dog owners in Louisville watched "humane" organizations conspire in a year-long campaign to make dog ownership a joyless affair in Louisville. As a result, dog owners have 90 new pages of animal control ordinance to contend with, governing everything from permissible leash length on up. They watched them support Cheri Bryant Hamilton and the Humane Society of the United States at every devious turn of that long, long negotiation. The ordinance that was rammed down the throats of pet owners in Louisville may well be illegal. Where was the outrage when the Humane Society of the United States advocated breed specific measures , and profiled some dog owners as "drug dealers, gang members, and anyone else who is looking for a dog to be a status symbol"? Did "humane organizaitons " argue that pandering to the media and fear-mongering is no way to respond to any "overpopulation" issues? Not Really. Unkindest cut of all: profiling entire neighborhoods of dog owners We're not talking status symbols and La-la Land, folks. When the Kentucky Humane Society called out seven Louisville zip codes for extra special attention, and free transportation to the pit bull castration fields. . .that was a whole 'nother field of endeavor. Its called red-lining. Red-lining Louisville Councilwoman Cheri Bryant Hamilton KHS offered free transportation, just for pit bulls, and just for pit bulls belonging to residents of certain parts of Louisville--including Cheri Bryant Hamilton's neighborhood. I wonder how Cheri feels about being lumped in with the drug dealers, gang members and the twisted thrill seekers the HSUS so loves to rage about. Surprise, Cheri! You've just been profiled based on your zip code. How's it feel? I wonder how Cheri's neighbors and constituents feel about it, too. I'd be pissed as hell. Its not gonna be any picnic at Kentucky Humane Society You think those dog owners will happily pack their dogs off for a day under the knife at Kentucky Humane, all alone, like trusting families send their kids to summer camp? Man, I sure wouldn't. Troubling trend: HSUS/DDAL partnering with Animal Farm Foundation, Pit Bull Rescue Central, others Call me crazy, but I have a problem with dog rescue groups that ally themselves with outfits that want to eliminate dogs from the face of the planet. Pacelle's infamous "one generation and out. . .we have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals" doesn't jive with promoting responsible pet ownership. Not at all. Animal Farm is still claiming that HSUS opposes BSL. Even after HSUS's Adam Goldfarb admitted that it in Louisville HSUS advocated breed specific measures. How sick is that? Who's up for the next round of surgeries? Huh? Who else is gonna get free transportation to a permanent exit from the gene pool? Once Kentucky Humane and their pals exterminate solve the overpopulation problem with pit bulls, who's next? What breed is next on the list?

My money is on some kind of retriever. Golden, yellow lab, black lab, chocolate lab, Chessie, Toller, whatever. . .it don't matter. Maybe all of them, what the hell.

Petfinder's always got a batch of bird dogs on offer, and gawd knows, their owners are sociopathic hunters enthralled by bloodlust.

Cyclops eye pointed at. . .who? You? Will the kind and caring folks send their free transportation squads into your neighborhood? Will your zip code be next on the list? Is your neighborhood looking a little "overpopulated" today?

Wanna schedule a freebie castration for next week, maybe? Courtesy of the Humane Society of the United States?

Calling progressive, liberal Dems! Think there's a reasonable trade off in sacrificing constitutional civil rights and liberties--like private property, due process, equal protection, and privacy--in those new animal protection laws? Do ya? Here's your question, then: Are you ready to surrender your dog? Are you? Cause this dog-owning, civil rights loving, long-time Democratic voter really wants to know. Joe Trippi, gentleman farmer Trippi, the guy who masterminded Howard Dean's internet campaign, has a new gig: Philadelphia mayoral hopeful Tom Knox. Trippi remains one of the most influential Democratic Party strategists in the country, and he lives on a fine little farmette on the Delmarva peninsula, within striking distance of the Capitol Beltway. Trippi family home in the Dogs Deserve Better database? Now, if Tammy Grimes and her vigilante posse ran off with Joe's dog, would he be cool with that? If Tammy creeped in some night and, citing the so-called "good samaritan law" that Trippi's other client, Best Friends Animal Society, is busy pitching to legislators. . .and she helped herself to his pets. . . that would be just fine. Right, Joe? What's a little vigilante justice among friends? Due process is so last season.

If the fine little farm's address popped up in Tammy's database of anonymously contributed locations ripe for raids--not a problem. Right, Joe?

Joe Trippi: Are you ready to surrender your dog?

Senator Patrick Leahy, VT: Big Thumbs Up for Mandatory RFID Microchipping and Spies in the Sky Senator Leahy says he's no friend of domestic spying schemes which may eavesdrop on law-abiding U. S. citizens. So what's he doing supporting NAIS [the National Animal Identification System]?

Eavesdropping? Don't make me laugh. NAIS, in the words of Dr. Mary Zanoni, sets the USDA up with the ability "to subject the owner of a chicken to more intrusive surveillance than the owner of a gun."

You think my dog is a national security risk, Senator? You find a need to surveille my home in order to protect the national food supply? Due to the presence of my one dog?

Will Senator Leahy mind it when NAIS places the global positioning coordinates of his own home in a database? Because it will, if he or any member of his household owns a single cat. Or dog. Or chicken.

Note to Senator Leahy: lay off the sweet green beverage from the little paper envelope, Senator! RFID microchipping is not about homeland security. Its not about protecting the food supply.

Its about making money. Those pharmaceutical companies are set to make a bundle, particularly when they start marketing that database once NAIS rolls out.

Patrick Leahy: are you ready to give up your dog?

Testicle Wars: Marching on to New Mexico, courtesy Democratic head honchos Martin Chavez and Bill Richardson Read it and weep. Democratic Albuquerque Mayor (freshly named to the DNC, by the way) Martin Chavez of New Mexico just made good on his promise to make the land of Dis Enchantment canine gonad-free.

Mandatory castration will be the SOP in the new New Mexico.

Of course, in Chavez's Albuquerque, Animal Control already doesn't have to bother with details like a search warrant if they're investigating an act of "cruelty." Rumors that doggy toe nails weren't clipped this week will suffice. So Mayor-wannabe-governor Martin Chavez, are you ready to surrender your dog? Cheri Bryant Hamilton: can't back-pedal fast enough in Louisville, KY Democratic City Councilmember Hamilton had better put a few miles between herself and the Pet Nazi animal control law she helped the Humane Society of the United States put in place in Louisville.

Things are getting a little difficult for dog and pet owners in Louisville these days, what with 90 new pages of animal control ordinances to comply with.

Has the Metro Animal Services Director been by to personally certify your fencing as now required by law, Cheri? I hope so. We wouldn't want anyone to confiscate your dog because your fence isn't six feet high, or sunk at least a foot under ground.

Cheri Bryant Hamilton: ready to surrender your dog yet?

This is your wake up call, Democrats!

Drop your what-nots and pull up your socks, boys!

This bullshit's got nothing to do with Democratic Party values!

What's so "liberal" about warrantless searches of family homes?

What's "progressive" about vigilantes, and the routine surveillance of law-abiding citizens?

Why is discarding due process rights such a hot item in certain Democratic circles these days?

And are you ready to surrender your dog?

Because its coming to that.

Sooner than you think.

Land of Dis Enchantment: Dems behaving badly in New Mexico. Really badly. There is some weird, freaky shit going down in the name of democracy and Democrats these days. Events in New Mexico are now about as weird as it gets. Special interests. . .beat out the U. S. Constitution Now, from this dog-owning Democrat's point of view, here are a few questions:

Has political posturing--calculated to appeal to animal rights extremists--replaced core Democratic Party values in the Land of Enchantment?

Will Governor Bill Richardson, the Democratic Party's Great Latino Hope, place the priorities of special interest groups ahead of the U. S. Constitution ? Albuquerque's HEART-less animal control mandate Richardson's understudy, Albuquerque's Democratic Mayor with gubernatorial aspirations Martin Chavez, beat him to the punch when it comes to sucking up to animal rights extremists. Chavez extols the virtues of mandatory microchip insertions and mandatory surgical sterilizations for pets, and promises to campaign to make such requirements a statewide obligation in 2007. Chavez is sounding less and less like a Democrat, and more and more like Rick Santorum. New Mexico animal rights organizations just love Chavez. Its easy to see why. There sure is a whole lotta smoochin' going on. Chavez is no renegade Democrat, though. He was just appointed to the Democratic National Committee. The preamble to Albuquerque's huge new anti-pet, anti-pet owner HEART ordinance reads-- "The Council further finds that the people of Albuquerque should treat animals as more than just lifeless inanimate chattel property. . ." Gag me with a spoon. Drivel and spin New Mexico's Animal Protection Voters lapped up that incoherent drivel, though. APV counted passage of HEART among their many 2006 "accomplishments." As far as Mayor-wannabe-Governor Chavez is concerned, your right to privacy -- destroyed by the easily-accessible database of household information created by mandatory microchip programs -- is unimportant. Your worries about the health implications of spay-neuter don't count either. In fact, your ability to make any decision at all on the care of your animals, protected by your constitutional property rights, is basically gone. In Albuquerque, you're just there to pay the bills. Paving the way for Louisville And you'd better have plenty of cash, too. Like Louisville, Albuquerque ordinances discriminate against the poor by establishing prohibitively high fees for various categories of pet ownership. Readers who were shocked by the undemocratic, wildly over-invasive, fraudulent set of animal control ordinances inflicted on Louisville, KY should think about what happened in Albuquerque first. Residents of both cities are now in court, struggling to rid themselves of deeply flawed ordinances that were strong-armed through the legislative process. In both cities concerns about the legality of the proceedings have been raised. Both sets of ordinances are so over-reaching and unenforceable that municipal officials, including both Mayor Martin Chavez in Albuquerque and Mayor Abramson in Louisville, indicate that they can only hope to enforce the new laws selectively. So much for equal protection under the law. Dems that diss civil liberties Just how many civil rights and liberties will Democrats blow off, anyway? Governor Bill Richardson: itchin' to lose his . . . virtue? Or was it already but a faint memory? Playing to the adoring New Mexico animal rights lobby, Richardson already signed a bill into state law that makes dogs that chase cats "potentially dangerous" and subject to seizure by authorities. Richardson's 10 point Animal Protection Package was released on December 27, just in time to compliment announcement of his presidential bid. The $3.6 million in funding offers more taxpayer money than the animal rights lobby previously asked for, and covers "humane education" for children in public schools and the establishment of an "Animal Welfare Oversight Board". Gee, I wonder who gets appointed to that? Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, the world's largest and richest animal rights organization, was quick to offer his thanks. Slick Billy Richardson: Between worlds, or simply AWOL on constitutional rights? This guy is a Democrat? Friend of the little guy? Campeón del pueblo? Protector of the oppressed? Where is Bill Richardson on protecting personal property rights, anyway? People like Ralph Nader "got it" years ago. Republicans like Charlie Norwood rule the eminent domain debate. As far as I can see, they're the ones standing up for our rights. What's up with that? Latino Uncle Tom for the Humane Society of the United States

The HSUS deliberately plays up middle-America's worst nightmares when they profile dog owners as "drug dealers, gang members, and anyone else who is looking for a dog to be a status symbol." And yeah, race and ethnicity are the unspoken subtexts here.

Doesn't that Tío Tomás, Bill Richardson, understand that the negative stereotypes so unjustly conjured up by HSUS encourage discrimination against the very socio-economic groups he is supposed to deliver to the Democratic Party?

How twisted is that?

Bill Richardson, blowing in the wind

Just what the hell is he thinking?

Other than "I want to be president", its hard to answer. The Albuquerque Journal quotes him, circa 1996: "I was a conservative Democrat, who became a progressive Democrat, who's now a moderate . . .a progressive moderate who's also pragmatic ." But, hey. That was ten whole years ago. Looks like Bill Richarson has moved on since then.

Score after Round One in the Big Apple-- Pit bulls: 1 Peter Vallone: 0 And those happy-go-lucky dogs with the infectious grins never laid a glove on him.

Opening a can of whoop-ass on Pete Vallone

NYC Councilman Peter Vallone (Democrat-Astoria) must be wondering what the hell happened. Response to his Christmas proposal to reverse New York State law and ban pit bulls from the City of New York met with near unanimous scorn.

The New York Post's Julia Szabo -- a pit bull owner herself -- ran the above photo from the Unexpected Pit Bull calendar. Then she encouraged readers to contact Vallone and tell him how they feel. And then she published his telephone number and email address.

Then there was Newsday's Denise Flaim.

". . .breedism is a fact of life for the pit bull, whose reputation is tinged with racial and socioeconomic associations that no one is comfortable talking about, but invariably react to."

Snark infested waters

And there was ultra-hip Gawker's take on the whole thing:

"Councilman Peter Vallone: Killjoy of the Year We've got to hand it to Queens Councilman Peter Vallone: Never has one politician advanced more ridiculous, attention-getting legislation. . ."

NY City Councilmember Peter Vallone. Animal Rights activist. Vallone's response to New Yorkers who contacted him about his proposal? "Thank you for contacting my office [. . .blah, blah, blah. . .] As a dog owner and animal rights activist I am well aware that when raised properly, pit bulls can be as loyal and loving as any other breed . . ." Animal rights activist? Now, where would a guy like Peter Vallone ever get the idea that animal rights activism could be squared with the destruction of pit bulls? Maybe from PETA President Ingrid Newkirk, who actively supports the euthanasia of all "pit bulls?" Ingrid's we-love-pit bulls-so-we-must-kill-them-all logic might have appealed to Vallone. Or maybe Vallone tried to follow the murky twists of Wayne Pacelle-speak, and concluded that Humane Society of the United States would be perfectly fine with a pit bull-free New York? Hard to say. But move over, Ingrid and Wayne. Peter Vallone just joined your team. Pit Bull sightings on Madison Avenue Will that goofy grin once again be used to encourage people to surrender their paychecks? After all, its not like pit bulls don't have experience in advertising. An informal survey of media watchers was decisive: pit bull sightings are on the rise! Its not your imagination. Pit bulls are everywhere. They're peddling lawn mowers, hot sauce, jeans, sports drinks. All kinds of stuff! Peter Vallone's worst nightmare. . . The Pit Bull that founded. . .Gotham? Or, should that be: "Gotham that founded the New Yorkie"? Does it really matter? Not to me.

Just as long as caring dog owners can to keep their good dogs, free of unreasonable restrictions.

Is that so much to ask, Councilman Vallone?

Mission: Market Share New York's ASPCA shows its true colors What has Orange done for you lately? New York City's ASPCA fired out a breathless "breaking news" alert last week and a letter from ASPCA President Ed Sayres. The ASPCA has long been a dominant animal law player in New York City, where all dogs and cats picked up stray, or impounded for any reason, must be surgically sterilized before they are returned to their owners. The ASPCA maintains a full-time dedicated lobbyist in Albany, too. But that was then, and this is now. The ASPCA has widened its horizons. Spread its wings. Got the bit between its teeth. Targeting four cities this year as, Mission: Orange, the ASPCA's million dollar PR campaign and re-branding effort, pledges to take the ASPCA coast-to-coast. Humaniac turf war? Looks like competition for "humane" donations just ratcheted up a notch. There'll be fierce competition for constituencies, too. Just how many national animal protection organizations does this country need, anyway? How are donors supposed to figure out where to send their money? While smaller than the Humane Society of the United States, the ASPCA reports revenue of about $50 million in 2004, and claims more than 1,000,000 members and supporters across the country. The ASPCA's tagline: "We are their voice" HSUS? "Promoting the protection of all animals" "Donate now!" is all over both websites, naturally. Decisions, decisions. Where to mail the check? This could get complicated! "We need you on our side" , also known as "Join now!" But the ASPCA doesn't mean me. I'm a dog owner, and the ASPCA doesn't support dog ownership. Or cat ownership. Gerbil or canary or turtle ownership. The ASPCA says guardianship is better. Their entire website was updated, not long ago, to reflect a global change to guardianship language. In other words, the ASPCA would like you to forfeit your ability to make decisions regarding the care and welfare of your pets, because you would no longer own them. And since the ASPCA is in the humane law enforcement business, guess who would be stepping in to make those decisions for you? Agent: Orange. Of course, of course. Orange will be backed up by the court system which has the power to appoint, and to remove, guardians. We are The Enemy. The Enemy is us. It used to be the hunters (bloodthirsty sociopaths). Then it was the breeders (money-grubbing puppymillers). Occasionally its the pit bull crowd (drug-dealing criminal losers). Now its all animal owners. So I'm the enemy. You probably are, too. We are characterized by the ASPCA as those who "have title to and dominion over the animal for the owner’s enjoyment and benefit as he/she sees fit." By definition, we're heartless monsters. Exploiters exerting our dominion as we see fit. Just ask the ASPCA. Selling shelter animals to pet shops. I thought that pet stores were on the humane movement's shit list. Remember the battle cry? "Don't buy from a store while dogs and cats wait in misery at the shelter!" I guess, anticipating that the pet supply chain will swing away from established sourcing, that had to change, too. Sha-zaam! Selling shelter animals to pet shops is now a good idea. But let's be clear: We're not talking consignment deals. Those puppies and kittens will be SOLD to pet stores. But, no worries! This is a good thing! The ASPCA says it is. Yup. All about market share. But I can see the angle. With a little coaching from pet retailers on bringing the product to market, those dogs and cats mean significantly increased revenues! Plus, think of what the sales would do for those "live exit" statistics the ASPCA is so concerned about. Hey, that dog or cat went out the door alive on its way the the pet store. Right? ASPCA and Agent Orange on the national platform Its not just the color scheme that's making me queasy, although the blunder seems to indicate an overall lack of judgement, if not a complete break with reality. What were Saatchi and Saatchi thinking? The ASPCA paid a million dollars for orange? By the way, do you think the ASPCA or their PR firm has any clue about who else might be using blaze orange? Any clue at all? This orange thing is so confusing! Just ticking along like Clockwork ORANGE The ASPCA opposes hunting under any circumstances, but uses blaze orange as their new symbol. The ASPCA "does not support purchasing or otherwise acquiring animals from large-scale commercial breeders [or] the retail outlets they supply. . ." but says that selling shelter animals to pet stores is okay. The ASPCA says owning animals is bad. Its exploitative. But then the ASPCA says there are problems with "guardianship", too. What kind of a whacked out outfit is this, anyway? I don't think they have a coherent position that differentiates them from HSUS. Not anymore, at least.

This is all about market share. The mission is market share. Not preventing cruelty, or any of the rest.

Death, destruction, and the HSUS: Democratic Party's gift to Louisville Dems continue to wander and dabble their way towards automatic support of animal rights issues, leaving their dog and pet-owning constituents to fend for themselves as best they can. Residents of Louisville, Kentucky are getting ready to assume the position. The countdown for implementation of Louisville's gargantuan anti-pet, anti-pet owner animal control ordinance continues. In the meantime, Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO of the largest, richest animal rights organization in the country--the organization that basically wrote the Louisville ordinance--says he's looking forward to a banner year. In fact, he comes precious close to hijacking Democratic Party rhetoric. In an article published for him by the Denver Post, he writes-- "The Democrats have now taken control of Congress . . .[and] the 2006 election brought decisive victories for the cause of animal protection - and left the callous to lick their own wounds for a change. . . Despite the enormous financial advantages of animal-use industries and their trade groups, they don't seem to welcome open debate and direct democracy. They do best in the clubby comfort zones of back rooms and big-time lobby firms. " Daring comments, coming from an organization that outspent Exxon Mobil in lobbying during the 2006 election cycle, spreading $3.4 million to support the candidates and issues HSUS favors. But then Wayne has been taught to spin by experts. HSUS employs one of the trendiest, most adept PR firms around. And with an income of upwards of $125 million in donations offered up by the unwitting to "save animals", HSUS can afford the very best. People who live in glass houses But problems with open debate and direct democracy? Oh, my. My, my, my. The Louisville Kennel Club and the League of Kentucky Sportsmen are filing suit against the city of Louisville to halt implementation of that HSUS-driven animal control law. One of their prime grievances? "[Counsel for the Louisville Kennel Club] says the council's Democratic Caucus violated the open-meetings law twice on the day that the council passed the ordinance. Hamilton, the ordinance's sponsor, held a work session early in the day to go over changes in the ordinance, with the full caucus meeting at 4 p.m. . . .Fleischaker asks that the council acknowledge violating the open-meetings law and apologize, acknowledge the vote was illegal and call a special meeting to rescind its approval." Meanwhile, back on the farm: low expectations prevail in Louisville Everyone's heard of the Peter Principle, right? Employees rise within the bureaucracy until they hit their level of incompetence ? "Incompetence" is going to take on a whole new meaning in Louisville, when the Director of Animal Services' new police state powers kick in. Meloche's employment history: clear pattern of failure Reporter Stephen George of the Louisville Eccentric Observer summarized Meloche's professional low points: Guilty administrative plea in Canada for improper record keeping of a controlled substance (anabolic steroids) at his veterinary clinic Fired after 10 months on the job as animal control administrator for the city of Durham, NC for insubordination Resigned from a position as Director of the Tallahassee-Leon Community Animal Control Services amid accusations of veterinary malpractice, aggravating shelter over-crowding and increasing euthanasia figures, inexperience with the public sector, and more. Meloche's mama might be proud, but I really wonder what Democratic Louisville Mayor Jerry Abramson saw in a job applicant with a work record like that. Who the heck put that resume on his desk, anyway? Huh? Democrat Abramson hired Meloche little more than a year ago. And Democrat Cheri Bryant Hamilton soon became his very best friend, along with Pam Rogers of the Humane Society of the United States, as the three of them cooked up an animal control ordinance widely acknowledged as the worst in the country. The Louisville animal control ordinance places near totalitarian power in the hands of Gilles Meloche. The 90 odd pages of it--and councilmembers were left scrambling to see if they had actually read it prior to considering it--passed on a clear party-line vote. Dems played follow the leader in what observer Stephen George called "a fantastic display of the dismal possibilities of partisanship in local politics." Usual suspects in Louisville: ordinary dog owners, good family dogs Disconsolate dog and pet owners in Louisville are waking up to what the Dems in the Louisville City Council did, and they're beginning to ask hard questions. Dems are feeling the noose begin to tighten, too. Selling out your constituency has its consequences. Let's just hope Democrats, both in Louisville and nationally, wake up and smell the dog. Soon.

Live from New York! Its not the dogs--its the dog owners ! As New York City Councilman Peter Vallone Jr. attempts to surf the fearmongering wave his recent anti-pit bull tirade spawned, who will step in to control the spin? Vallone? I'm thinking not so much. At this point, it looks like Vallone can't find his butt with both hands. His comments on pit bulls are a steady stream of misinformation, myth and hype. Shocked members of the Dog Federation of New York rushed to offer their assistance in understanding things like bite statistics and dog anatomy. They offered to help him set up community-based dog safety programs within the scope of existing law.

Let's just hope he takes it. He seemed to have no facts of any sort available to him.

No traction on the mean streets of New York

At least not for a tough guy wannabe like Councilman Vallone, trying to work a crowd that's been there, seen that, and gave the t-shirt to the dog.

Predictably, his talk of banning pit bulls from the Big Apple met with a cool reception. Many New Yorkers fondly remember former Animal Care and Control Director Ed Boks' comments on pit bulls. Ed famously suggested renaming the dogs "New Yorkies" and quipped:

New Yorkers, like pit bulls, are sometimes perceived as a standoffish and mean breed - but are actually some of the most generous and open-hearted people I've ever met.

And here's Ed with a New Yorkie. Yup. "Pit bulls" have plenty of advocates in the City of New York. Including outspoken members of the "animal protection" business, like New York's ASPCA, the Mayor's Alliance for Animals, the Humane Voters League, and others. But politics abhors a vacuum. The momentum Vallone created is going someplace.

If NYC doesn't ban pit bulls, what will it do? Gotta do something about the ruckus he kicked up. Right? Blame gamesmanship in the Big Apple I think Vallone is looking to nail someone. Anyone. He has to. Otherwise he's just a wussy that started something he couldn't finish. Not the image he wants to cultivate. So let's look at his remaining options for spinning that pit bull-inspired media blitz, and maybe saving his political rear end while he's at it. Resolution 156, Vallone's call to the New York State legislature to reverse state law and allow him to ban pit bulls and other breeds reads:

. . .dogs are often the weapon of choice of drug dealers and gangs seeking to intimidate and terrorize neighborhoods

That language is remarkably similar to what Humane Society of the United States' Pam Rogers used to stampede the Louisville City Council. In Louisville they passed what may be the worst animal control ordinance in the country.

Pam Rogers wrote:

["pit bulls"] 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."

The ASPCA, long a dominant force in NYC animal issues, says: [“Animal owners” have] title to and dominion over the animal for the owner’s enjoyment and benefit as he/she sees fit. [Shifting to "guardianship"] will foster better protections for animals, as well as the development of a more respectful and humane society. And then there's Jane Hoffman, President and COB of the NYC Mayor's Alliance for Animals. Questioned by the NY Daily News about Councilman Vallone's pit bull tantrum, she responded: . . .dangerous dogs are created by neglectful owners who often leave them chained up in a yard.

Pointing the finger at. . .us?

Oh, yeah.

Its not the dogs. Duh. We knew that.

Its us. Nasty, mean, criminal, vicious, drug-dealing spiteful dog owners.

Dog owners need regulation. Supervision. Rules and boundaries. Lots and lots of them. Maybe 100 page's worth, like they got in Louisville. It will serve us right.

Sound like a plan? It will take a little more spinning, of course, but I'm thinking Peter Vallone will have some help with that.

What do you want to bet something very similar to that Louisville ordinance is going to hit Peter Vallone's desk with a thud?

Any takers? I'll give you good odds.