Note To My Critics:

The links to the many sites that I've included contain information that I believe to be relevant, be it the graphics, the videos, the undercover investigations, etc. . Exposing & and ending the brutality and savagery inflicted on the non-human animals is what I am focused on. I strongly believe that every voice against animal abuse/exploitation is of value and -and- collectively we have the power to end it. I am here for the animals, not for anyone's approval and for that I make no apologies. ** I do not promote violence towards humans. ___________________________________________________ Bookmark and Share

Thursday, April 22, 2010

The Liberation of Living Beings

I'm not a Buddhist but I  have a great deal of respect for this doctrine of peace and compassion.

"Liberating Living Beings"

Buddhist practice of rescuing animals, birds, fish and so forth that are destined for slaughter or that are permanently caged. They are released to a new physical and spiritual life. The practice exemplifies the fundamental Buddhist teaching of compassion for all living beings. A
disciple of the Buddha must maintain a mind of kindness and cultivate the practice of liberating beings. He should reflect thus: 'All male beings have been my father and all females have been my mother. There is not a single being who has not given birth to me during my previous lives, hence all beings of the Six Destinies are my parents. Therefore, when a person kills and eats any of these beings, he thereby slaughters my parents. Furthermore, he kills a body that was once my own, for all elemental earth and water previously served as part of my body and all elemental fire and wind have served as my basic substance. Therefore, I shall always cultivate the practice of liberating beings and in every life be reborn in the eternally-​​​abiding Dharma and teach others to liberate beings as well.


Whenever a Bodhisattva sees a person preparing to kill an animal, he should devise a skilful method to rescue and protect it, freeing it from its suffering and difficulties. (BNS I 162) In China this practice was made popular by the Venerable Jr-Yi (see entry) and has continued to the present day. Developing our Compassion by Liberating Living Beings "Once a month at the City of Ten Thousand Buddhas, we liberate animals destined for slaughter. We purchase them from the wholesalers, bring them to some appropriate place, and let them go free. We recite mantras, sutras, and praises on their behalf, so that they can hear them, and so that the merit of our recitation can be transferred to them. This traditional Buddhist practice, called
"liberating living beings', has always been praised and honored by the
sages and high masters.


"By liberating living beings, we also nurture compassion in our hearts. By not killing, we cultivate compassion. In letting living creatures go, we also cultivate compassion. The compassion in our hearts grows greater every day until it becomes as great as that of the greatly compassionate Bodhisattva Observer of the World's Sounds (​​​Avalokiteshvara..​)​​​.​​​


"Bodhisattva Observer of the World's Sounds did not kill living beings; she always
liberated them, and so she has a greatly compassionate heart. We should imitate the great kindness and compassion of Bodhisattva Observer of the World's Sounds and liberate living beings. The principle is very logical: if you liberate life, you increase your compassion. Liberating
living beings is just liberating ourselves Why? Because we and all living beings are basically of one substance. We should think this way: 'If someone put me in a cage, wouldn't I be uncomfortable? Wouldn't I wish that someone would let me go? If I were put in jail, I would not
want to stay there. Likewise, I don't like to see birds put in cages. This is because living beings and I are of one substance. Since I feel this way, I want to liberate living beings.


"What is more, you don't know which living being was related to you in a past life. One might have been your father, or your brother, or your sister. You can't know for sure. Perhaps they were your children, or your friends. Right now you haven't gained the use of the Heavenly Eye or the Penetration of Past Lives, and so you don't know what kinds of causes and effects belong to each
animal; and yet, when you see these creatures, you feel uncomfortable and want to set them free. Setting them free isn't a stupid thing to do by any means, as some people might think. It is an aspect of cultivation. There isn't just one way to cultivate. There are eighty-four thousand Dharma-doors in cultivation, and every single door leads to the realization of supreme enlightenment. Liberating living beings is one of them. We must be careful not to think of it as 'stupid'. If we have that kind of attitude, we will obstruct our own cultivation.


"I just said that we wouldn't want to be locked in jail. I will tell you the truth. This is not an analogy. Your own body is, in fact, a cage! You are stuck in your own body and you are not yet able to get out of it. Until we have gained a very high level of spiritual practice and wisdom, we will remain stuck in the cages that are our bodies. Only then will we have liberated our own lives. That's the real liberation of the living. If we want to liberate our own lives, we must first liberate the lives of those little creatures. The one kind of liberating the living helps the other kind.


"Liberating living beings is a very important aspect of Buddhist practice. But if one hasn't understood this yet, one might think it a very ordinary affair. If we don't cultivate the one kind of liberating the living, we won't be able to obtain the other kind. There are many changes and transformations..​,​​​ and so don't look upon this lightly. Liberating the living brings returns on one's own efforts." (Venerable Master Hsuan Hua, PDS, May, 1985) "Why do we liberate [living creatures]? It is because if we ransom creatures that were destined to be slaughtered for food and then set them free, then they can live out their natural lifespans. This in turn enables the people who liberate the living to enjoy a long life.


"Why are there wars in the world? It is because our collective killing karma is so heavy. If in this life I kill you, in the next life, you'll kill me, and in the life after that I'll come back to kill you. This cycle of killing continues forever. People kill animals and in their next life they become animals. The animals which they once killed now return as people to claim revenge.This goes on and on. There is endless killing and bloodshed. Whenincidents of slaughter multiply until the resentment can no longer becontained, they explode into massive world wars, with the resultant huge massacres and horrendous destruction. On the battlefield, people are propelled by resentment and enmity that has accumulated during many lifetimes, and they go absolutely berserk, lashing out at one another like savages. 'You kill one person? I'll kill ten!' They take revenge
on one another like that. Wars are the painful results of killing karma created in our past lives.


"Therefore, we liberate the living to diminish our killing karma. The more people engage in liberating the living, the less killing they will do. Wars will proportionately..​ decrease. We who cultivate these compassionate practices do not oppose war: we just don't go to war. We don't kill but instead we set living creatures free. This is the true and ultimate way to eliminate war. It
is also a gateway to long life and health and to the eradication of disasters and illnesses. The merit and virtue that one accumulates from liberating animals is boundless. It enables you to cause living beings to live out the full extent of their natural lifespans. In addition, you benefit personally because illnesses are averted. As a result you enjoy good health and are able to peacefully cultivate the Way.


purpose of liberating the living is to protect the lives of creatures.
It is a Dharma-door that exemplifies the Buddha's compassion. Everyone
should protect living creatures and not abuse or slaughter them."


"In liberating the living
You yourself will live long.
health, riches and blessings
Will descend upon you,

The Web Site The Meat Industry Doesn't Want You To See *Grapic-Horrifying*

Find out more at

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Cow Torture Video: Willet Dairy Caught Burning Off Cows' Horns, Chopping Calf's Tail In Mercy For Animals Expose

Cow Torture Video: Willet Dairy Caught Burning Off Cows' Horns, Chopping Calf's Tail In Mercy For Animals Expose

ALBANY, N.Y. — An animal-rights group released a video Tuesday showing an upstate New York farm worker lopping off a calf's tail and burning off its budding horns as the animal moans and struggles frantically to escape, prompting a state lawmaker to propose that New York follow California's lead in banning tail-docking for dairy cows.

The video was recorded in an undercover investigation at one of New York's largest dairy farms, according to Chicago-based Mercy For Animals, a not-for-profit group that publicizes what it calls cruel practices in the dairy, meat and egg industries and promotes a vegan diet.

The video, posted on YouTube, shows workers punching and kicking cows to get them to move and dragging newborn calves from their mothers by one leg. After seeing it, Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal, a Manhattan Democrat, proposed a tail-docking ban similar to one enacted last year in California.

The video also shows cows with various injuries, including swollen and festering sores and a prolapsed uterus, and several animals too sick or injured to stand.

Nathan Runkle, executive director of Mercy For Animals, said the video was shot between December 2008 and February 2009 by an undercover worker at Willet Dairy in Locke, 30 miles southwest of Syracuse, in hopes of persuading law enforcement to lodge cruelty charges. The Cayuga County District Attorney's Office declined to press charges in August, Runkle said.

"If this dairy producer mutilated, neglected or cruelly beat puppies or kittens like they do dairy cows and their calves, they could face imprisonment on grounds of cruelty to animals," Runkle said. Farm animals deserve the same protection, he said.

Robert Baker, director of farm animal welfare for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said he also tried to get the district attorney's office to investigate but was told the attorneys were too busy.
Story continues below

"These things appear to us to be blatant acts of cruelty," Baker said.

The only person authorized to comment for Willet Dairy was out of the country and unreachable, said Laura Wells, the farm's accounting manager. Attorney David Cook, who successfully defended the farm against a pollution lawsuit filed by neighbors several years ago, was also out of the country, his assistant said.

Assistant District Attorney Diane Adsit said in an e-mail that many of the actions shown in the videotapes "are commonly accepted practices used to protect both animals and farmers on large dairy farms."

"While shocking to look at, these practices are not necessarily illegal," Adsit said. If an investigation by the local SPCA leads the organization to file animal-cruelty charges, "we will prosecute anyone so charged," she said.

Dairy officials say the practice of cutting off cow tails to prevent them from slinging manure is practiced on a small percentage of dairy farms. It is usually done without numbing, either with sharp shears or with a tight rubber band that stops the blood flow and causes the tail to die and fall off. Dehorning is done to prevent the animals from goring each other or their handlers.

While some dairy operators have argued that removing tails improves sanitation, research has not supported the claim and in 2004 the American Veterinary Medical Association came out against the practice.

With animal advocacy groups focusing increasing attention on the dairy industry, the National Milk Producers Federation is urging dairy operators to participate in a voluntary program it's starting this year to help them demonstrate that their products are "cruelty free."

The program's guidelines specify that tail docking and dehorning should be done only under proper anesthesia. The guidelines also discourage malicious striking or dragging animals.

"Responsible animal stewardship is a good thing for people and cows, and the ... program is designed to promote the best practices in animal care that consumers have come to expect from the dairy sector," said federation spokesman Christopher Galen.

Stop crush video website

Reposted With Thanks To:

Posted by
Kindness of Strangers twitter.​com/​nansealove

I also posted this as a blog, Anthony Marr was gracious enough to give the site url in his latest blog. This must be stopped! A close friend share this with and I could not get it out of my mind: "I kept thinking about the pup that tried to get away and then in desperation wagged his tail and I could not sleep for three nights" Those words haunt me now, as did the pictures posted in the comments of this old blog: Chinese Attrocities I showed it to my husband because he did not believe me, now he is telling people about crush videos, but our site is missing!



Animal crush videos are videos of small animals, such as puppies, kittens, and bunnies, slowly being tortured in the most hideous methods and include being burnt alive, nailed to the floor, beaten, strangled, stabbed, and limbs broken. All of these videos have one uniting theme: these animals are also slowly stomped, stepped on, or sat on by a woman in high heels while she tortures them.

What are seen on the Internet are only brief glimpses; most videos last about 30-90 minutes. These animal crush videos are made for a specific customer with an unusual sexual fetish and there is increased demand for such material for the shock value as well. These animals suffered a horrific and hideous death so that their suffering could be sold so that some sick person could get off on it.

It is wrong that not only are these videos made for someone’s viewing pleasure but to think that people willingly made and participated in the torture and killing of these poor animals for profit is unbelievable. What is worse is that these videos are legal to own and view! LEGAL! The Supreme Court is deciding soon if this cruelty should continue to be protected by the First Amendment as FREE SPEECH! This decision could come as early as June and no later than July, so time to get the word out is of the essence. Few people know about this growing phenomena and media attention must be attracted.

What if a child comes across something like this on the Internet? How will this affect them, or will our children become so immune to the suffering of others that they will feel nothing? What if these animal crush videos are no longer enough to satisfy these perverted people? Will a child be in the next crush video?


We must come together to stop not only the production and selling but also the viewing of these horrible crush videos! If we do not stop this then more animals will die and yes, there is a very real chance that a child crush video could be next!

We need your help. We need your voice to educate the public and to raise awareness! We cannot do this without your help! Even if you only cross post this then you are helping.

Please join us at www.​stopcrush.​org and help us find ways to reach every house hold with this message.

Your ideas, thoughts, comments, are all needed!


The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) done much to inform the public on this issue. Their efforts helped make animal crush videos illegal, as they played a large role in getting the initial act passed (Depictions of Animal Cruelty Act).

Since then, that law was overturned and the HSUS has been fighting for its reinstatement. They did a major investigation and gathered up footage, websites and names of people responsible for making and selling these videos. HSUS also submitted an amicus brief for the US Supreme Court to review in the US v. Steven's case.

U.S. Supreme Court to Review Animal Cruelty Law Will hear appeal of ruling

Both these links show the need for federal Depiction of Animal Cruelty Law

Resurgence of Animal ‘Crush’ Videos

Crush Videos Make a Comeback

Crush Video Investigation Evidence for Federal Law

(Pet-Abuse site is blocked by myspace but is an excellent source of no graphic information, just copy and paste the web address into your browser window.)


This is a well moderated and very informative site. Check out the discussions there such as people involved in this case who are fighting for reinstatement of the Depictions of Animal Cruelty Act, their contact information and the contact information (and Facebook pages) can be found here:

The People Who Have Taken Action Against Crush Videos
This is an excellent source of information of people to thank, with their contact information who have done something to stop crush videos.


This site has close to 30,000 members on it but does not appear to be actively monitored or doing anything to stop crush videos except to have the address of petition. However many people look like they really care and it is an excellent source of recruiting active participants in stopping crush videos.


Stop Crush Videos Group



Contact your state and federal elected officials and make them aware.

Contact Information United States Senate

List of U.S. Representative Offices


Contact information to all newspapers in the world

To whom it may concern;
On behalf of a growing number of concerned citizens and members of www.​stopcrush.​org, I am asking your assistance in helping raise public awareness and education on animal crush videos and related media.

Crush videos are graphic images and film of animals being tortured and stepped on, usually by a woman in high heels, till they are killed. These films average 30-90 minutes; what is seen on the internet is only small clips or previews. These videos are made for the entertainment of satisfying a consumer with an unusual fetish that finds sexual gratification through the torture of these animals. There is also the shock factor involved that is finding popularity in such audiences.

Currently, while animal abuse and cruelty is a crime, the showing of such offensive material is not. In fact, these videos are protected by the first amendment as a freedom of speech. What is not covered is the actual making of the video because animals were abused, tortured, and killed during the process of filming.

Animal cruelty is still illegal! Yet it is hard to stop the production when consumerism is involved and this is why it is so important to stop the showing and selling of such extreme animal torture; both go hand in hand.

In order to stop the production, the availability and ease of access must be stopped.
It is easy to forget that we each have a weapon and that is our voice. It is here that lies our strength and support and that is way it is so vitally important to educate and raise awareness: because with more people involved and with public backing we will be able to influence the Supreme Court when it makes its decision on this being a free speech issue in June or at the latest July. We must speak up and not risk a wrong decision by a court that thinks few are watching.

Speak, write, email, and blog, make phone calls: do something so we get the message out.

This is why I am asking you to stand up for our cause, to help put a stop not only the showing and selling of crush videos but also the production of these horrific animal crush videos. I believe with raising awareness and ongoing public education that we can achieve the vast public disapproval of such a horrible act and put pressure on our government for future laws that will put an end to such a production. And in the process save lives!

I want to encourage you to spread the word and to find ways to stop these crush videos and other media and, in the end, the production of such horrific crimes against animals.

On behalf of www.​stopcrush.​org, I thank you for all that you do to help support our cause.

Your Name
Email or contact #

(Thank you to Yevin for creating this letter.)

There are a few other agencies besides the HSUS that also fought on behalf of the animal victims of crush videos. These agencies may be valuable allies, and should be contacted, those that filed amicus briefs include:

1. The Center on the Administration of Criminal Law (Not an animal welfare group, but they submitted a brief on behalf of the animals.)

2. Northwest Animal Rights Network (NARN)

3. Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF)

4. International Society for Animal Rights (ISAR)

5. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)

6. Washington Legal Foundation and Allied Educational Foundation (Again, not an animal welfare agency, but submitted an brief for the animals)


Sunday, April 18, 2010

Woman's idea could help humans, animals find stable homes

Woman's idea could help humans, animals find stable homes

Plan for combined shelter needs our votes

 - Herald-Leader columnist
Jill Timmins wants to establish a homeless shelter of sorts for humans and domestic animals in the Bluegrass called Animals Helping Humans & Humans Helping Animals.
The humans will provide the care and training that the animals need, and the animals will provide the self-esteem, sense of accomplishment and work skills that the humans need to get jobs and re-established in society.
To start such an innovative project, Timmins needs your help. Not your money, just minutes of your time every day this month.
"I call it my 'ah ha' moment," said Timmins, 29.
She is vying with 300 other projects — including three in Kentucky — in the $250,000 category of the Pepsi Refresh Project.
Pepsi announced the contest in December, saying it would forgo buying commercial time during the Super Bowl and donate $20 million this year to encourage and give funding to local projects that would improve neighborhoods and communities throughout the country.
People or organizations may submit ideas for review, and 1,000 a month will compete for $1.3 million in four categories: $5,000, $25,000, $50,000 and $250,000.
To win $250,000, Timmins has to be one of the top two finishers in April.
The top 10 projects in each of the other categories will win awards. Ten Kentucky projects are in those categories.
When I looked Monday morning, Timmins' project was in 71st place. When I looked again that afternoon, it had fallen to 76th.
Here's where you can help: To support Timmins' project, go to, sign up and vote. You can vote as many as 10 times a day from each e-mail address that you submit.
Timmins wants to establish the shelter where it is most needed. Although she had never owned a pet as a child, she had a pet-sitting service and now owns a therapy dog, Sandie.
At her shelter, animals would not be corralled off the streets. They would be obtained from other shelters, she said.
Timmins, a family-support specialist with the state, said she has been thinking about this project for some time. She graduated from the University of Florida with a degree in family, youth and community sciences and a minor in non-profit organization.
Animals bring out the best in people by loving us unconditionally, she said. Many people could benefit from that kind of love.
Here's her plan: The people — or humans, as she calls them — who live at the shelter would have assigned jobs, for which they would earn a certificate. Qualified counselors would be available to help the people deal with any substance-abuse problems and train them to keep a budget and maintain a checking account.
Once the person has completed the program, which would take at least four months, counselors would help him or her find employment and a home.
The shelter, which would be separate but on the same grounds, would be about "helping alleviate overpopulated human homeless shelters and preventing shelter animals from being euthanized," Timmins wrote on the application.
"This will be a no-kill shelter," she said.
Low-cost veterinary services would be available to help defray future costs of the shelter.
If you support Timmins' idea, be sure to vote.
Reach Merlene Davis at (859) 231-3218 or 1-800-950-6397, Ext. 3218, or

Read more:

New Jersey Attorney Richard Shackleton ~ Killer

On April 9, SHARK made an unannounced visit to the Long Beach Township Committee meeting, to confront town attorney Richard Shackleton about his vile and hate filled attack against two female activists outside the infamous Philadelphia Gun Club during the February 20, 2010 pigeon shoot. You can watch the video of what happened...

The Press of Atlantic City, the major daily newspaper covering that area, ran a story today about Mr. Shackleton's obscene behavior. Again Mr. Shackleton admitted to and took complete ownership of his disgusting verbal assault.

This big, tough lawyer, who illegally shoots small defenseless animals catapulted out of boxes, and attacks women from the safety inside of his big SUV, seems to be suddenly quite upset that SHARK took pictures of him while he was pigeon shooting. That means we are doing our job! Claiming that we were "harassing" him when everything we did was legal and peaceful shows what incredible crybabies animal abusers are.

One thing for all of us to celebrate is that after over one hundred thirty years of slaughtering pigeons at the club, our efforts have shut those killing parties down, in spite of all their money and political clout. It shows what a small group of determined individuals can do.

You can go to the newspaper site and leave a comment about what you think about Mr. Shackleton HERE:

Please contact the Mayor and two Commissioners of Long Beach Township and let him know what you think about Mr. Shackleton's sickening words and request his dismissal as township solicitor.

What's In Dog Food ?

Pet Food Safty

Foods To Avoid Giving To Yor Pets

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Lufthansa Airlines Transports Beagles Testing Laboratories Read Bulletin
We recently obtained heartbreaking photos showing at least 50 beagles confined to crates and loaded like cargo on a Lufthansa transport plane. The beagles were destined for a Charles River Laboratories (CRL) animal-testing facility in Scotland where they will likely be poisoned and killed in drug and pesticide tests.

CRL condemns tens of millions of animals to confinement, poisoning, mutilation, and death in its own laboratories and those of its customers. The company was recently fined $14,000 after 32 monkeys were cooked to death when a room at its facility in Reno, Nev., overheated.

By transporting these animals, Lufthansa is facilitating and profiting from the abuse of animals in laboratories. Please take a moment to let Lufthansa know that this practice is unacceptable.

Send a quick e-mail to Lufthansa vice president Jens Bischof and urge him to join other progressive airlines like Qantas and Cathay Pacific by enacting a policy against transporting animals destined for use in laboratories.

Tell Airline to Stop Transporting Animals to Laboratories

Thank you for giving a voice to animals in need!

Justin Goodman
Research Associate Supervisor
Laboratory Investigations Department

Thursday, April 8, 2010

Canadian Horse Slaughter *Graphic*

From: Beth in Illinois Fighting to End Horse Slaughter (www.​myspace.​​com/​66851365)

In late February 2010, the Canadian Horse Defence Coalition (CHDC) received hidden camera footage of horse slaughter practices at Quebecs Viandes Richelieu and Albertas Bouvry Exports - the latter known as North Americas largest exporter of horsemeat.

The CHDC has asked a panel of veterinarians, the BC SPCA and the World Society for the Protection of Animals to review the footage, which contains numerous instances of improper stunning and horses showing signs of returning consciousness.

Early audit results of the footage show automatic failures of both facilities.

As there are only two government-​​​approved methods of stunning horses in Canada - captive bolt gun and rifle - and both methods have been shown to cause prolonged suffering in numerous horses, we conclude that these animals cannot be slaughtered humanely in todays slaughterhouse assembly lines.

The CHDC therefore calls for the immediate closure of Canadas horse slaughter plants.

Albertas Bouvry Exports

Part One

Part Two

Part Three


Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Cow’s Milk and Type 1 Diabetes

PCRM >> Health >> Dr. Neal Barnard's Program for Reversing Diabetes >> Food for Life TV: Interactive Wecasts for Anyone Who Wants a Healthier Diet
Food  For Life TV: Interactive Webcasts for Anyone Who Wants a Healthier Diet
Nutrition News – Lectures by Neal Barnard, M.D. – Cooking Demonstrations – Your Questions Answered – Shopping Tips – Restaurant Reviews – And More!
April 8, 2010: Cow’s Milk and Type 1 Diabetes

On this week’s episode of Food for Life TV, Dr. Barnard gives an overview of how insulin is made. He also explains that type 1 diabetes is caused when the body produces no insulin. Research shows that this may occur when antibodies in your body fight off proteins found in cow’s milk. Dr. Barnard also outlines how people already diagnosed with type 1 diabetes can cut down on diabetes complications by eating foods that are vegan, low in fat, and have a low gylcemic index.
Core Classes
  1. Type 1 Diabetes
    Neal Barnard, M.D., gives a lecture on type 1 diabetes; Susan Levin, M.S., R.D., shares a success story and discusses news about bariatric surgery; Lisa Davis demonstrates how to make Red Bean Casserole.
  2. A New Approach to Diabetes
    Neal Barnard, M.D., gives a lecture a new approach to diabetes; Susan Levin, M.S., R.D., and Jill Eckart, C.H.H.C., answer your questions; Jill demonstrates 4 Day/4 Way Rice and Beans.
  3. The Science Behind A New Diet for Diabetes
    Neal Barnard, M.D., gives a lecture on the science behind a new diet for diabetes; Caroline Trapp, M.S.N., C.D.E., presents: Know Your Numbers; Susan Levin, M.S., R.D., and Jill Eckart, C.H.H.C., share a success story and answer your questions; Lisa Davis demonstrates Low-Fat Guacamole.
  4. What Do You Have to Lose?
    Neal Barnard, M.D., gives a lecture on diet and weight loss; Caroline Trapp, M.S.N., C.D.E., presents: Know Your Numbers, Part II; Susan Levin, M.S., R.D., and Jill Eckart, C.H.H.C., present “What’s In Your Cart: Carrots and Hummus”; Robyn Webb demonstrates how to make Spinach, Orange, and Beet Salad.
  5. All About The Glycemic Index
    Neal Barnard, M.D., gives a lecture on the glycemic index; Caroline Trapp, M.S.N., C.D.E., presents “Monitoring your Blood Sugar” and a Q&A; Lisa Davis demonstrates how to make Breakfast Scramble.
Return to Diabetes main page

Eating A Fish Alive

Humans Beings are the most sickening, revolting, despicable creatures on this planet. I truly hope there is 'Karma' and I hope it catches up to every black-hearted, wicked, evil piece human-refuse who harm the innocent, most vulnerable beings. What's more I hope there is a hell and in that hell I hope there is very special place for all the black-heated bastards who laughingly enjoy with glee the suffering they inflict on other sentient beings.

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Homeland Security Says Timothy McVeigh Isn’t a Terrorist, But Peace Activists Are »


Homeland Security Says Timothy McVeigh Isn’t a Terrorist, But Peace Activists Are

Oct 8th, 2008 by Will Potter

mcveigh not a terrorist?This is what fighting “terrorism” in this country has become.

Timothy McVeigh is responsible for the Oklahoma City Bombing, the deadliest act of terrorism in this country prior to 9/11, killing 168 people, but a Homeland Security official says he’s not a terrorist. Neither is Eric Rudolph, who killed two people and injured hundreds others in a bombing campaign against abortion and a “homosexual agenda.”

Pennsylvania’s Homeland Security Director James Powers said:

“Tim McVey [sic] is not a terrorist, just very angry with the U.S. government,” Powers said. “Whether a person is a terrorist or a criminal is irrelevant to me.”

You know whom he and the state police do consider terrorists? The Earth Liberation Front, Animal Liberation Front, and Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, even though actions by those groups have been “relatively minor,” by their admission. Those groups have never injured anyone, let alone killed hundreds, but the Pennsylvania state police is offering free, yes free, “risk and vulnerability assessments” for corporations to help protect their profits from pesky activists. [Sounds kind of like that leaked State Department presentation, doesn't it?]

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated, “news of the weird” kind of incident. It’s systemic.

The Maryland State Police have admitted classifying 53 nonviolent activists as terrorists, including opponents of the war and the death penalty, and tracking them in state and federal “terrorism” databases. Cops infiltrated organizing meetings and rallies, and spied on political email lists, similar to the government infiltration of the RNC.

The groups targeted, including the Maryland Campaign to End the Death Penalty and the Baltimore Pledge of Resistance, aren’t suspected of harming anyone, aren’t suspected of bombing anyone, aren’t even suspected of vandalizing property.

Their crime? They’re “fringe people,” says Thomas E. Hutchins, the former state police superintendent who authorized the operation.

“I don’t believe the First Amendment is any guarantee to those who wish to disrupt the government,” he said.

Get this, one activist was described in police databases as having a “primary crime” of “terrorism-anti-government” and a “secondary crime” of “terrorism-anti-war protesters.” This wasn’t an isolated abuse of power, this is a coordinated campaign of harassment and intimidation.

The gloves are really starting to come off, folks. Years ago, government officials were using these same tactics, but under the pretext of going after illegal, underground groups like the Earth Liberation Front. Now, they are openly, brazenly, harassing and infiltrating nonviolent activist groups with no connection–not even an ideological connection–to saboteurs. Why? This “War on Terrorism,” above all else, is an ideological war.

In some ways, though, I think folks should take some pride in that. Considering what is mainstream government policy now, I’d much rather be in the camp of “fringe people.” As Billy Bragg said, “If you’ve got a blacklist, I want to be on it.”

Homeland Security Says Timothy McVeigh Isn’t a Terrorist, But Peace Activists Are »

Traumatized vets say service dogs help them to live

Nation & World | Traumatized vets say service dogs help them to live | Seattle Times Newspaper
WASHINGTON — Weeks after Chris Goehner, 25, an Iraq war veteran, got a dog, he was able to cut in half the dose of anxiety and sleep medications he took for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The night terrors and suicidal thoughts that kept him awake for days on end ceased.
Aaron Ellis, 29, another Iraq veteran with the stress disorder, scrapped his medications entirely soon after getting a dog — and set foot in a grocery store for the first time in three years.
The dogs to whom they credit their improved health are not just pets. They are psychiatric service dogs trained to help traumatized veterans leave the battlefield behind as they reintegrate into society.
Because of stories like these, the federal government, not usually at the forefront of alternative medical treatments, is spending several million dollars to study whether research supports anecdotal reports the dogs might speed recovery from the psychological wounds of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In dozens of interviews, veterans and their therapists reported drastic reductions in PTSD symptoms and in reliance on medication after receiving a service dog.
Veterans rely on their dogs to gauge the safety of their surroundings, allowing them to venture into public places without constantly scanning for snipers, hidden bombs and other dangers lurking in the minds of those with the disorder.
In August, Jacob Hyde got his service dog, Mya, from Puppies Behind Bars, a program based in New York state that uses prisoners to raise and train dogs for lives of service. The organization has placed 23 dogs with veterans with PTSD in the past two years, training them to obey 87 commands.
"If I didn't have legs, I would have to crawl around," said Hyde, 25. "If I didn't have Mya, I wouldn't be able to leave the house."
If Hyde says "block," the dog will stand perpendicularly in front of him to keep other people at a distance. If he asks Mya to "get his back," the dog will sit facing backward by his side.
The dogs are trained to jolt a soldier from a flashback, dial 911 on a phone and sense a panic attack before it starts. Perhaps most important, the veterans' sense of responsibility, optimism and self-awareness is renewed by caring for the dogs.
The dogs help soldiers understand "what's happening as it's happening, what to do about it, and then doing it," said Joan Esnayra, a geneticist whose research team has received $300,000 from the Defense Department to study the issue. "You can use your dog kind of like a mirror to reflect back your emotional tenor."
The dog is also often the first visible manifestation of a former soldier's disability. Because people are curious about the animal, the veteran gets an opportunity to talk about his condition and his war experiences, discussions that can contribute to recovery.
More broadly, the dogs help increase public awareness of PTSD, which the Veterans Affairs Department said affects about one quarter of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans with whom it has worked.
Under a bill written by Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., veterans with PTSD will get service dogs in a pilot program run by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Training a psychiatric service dog and pairing it with a client costs more than $20,000. The government already helps provide dogs to soldiers who lost their sight or were severely wounded in combat, but had never considered placing dogs for emotional dam

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Banning Gas Chambers: A Fight You Can Help Us Win

NOTE: The term 'euthanasia' is from the Greek meaning  "good death"  Gassing an animal with carbon monoxide is not a  "good death" a heart stick  is not a "good death"  so in my opinion these shelters have no right to use the term 'euthanasia'.  Any shelter who uses a gas chamber or  heart stick are simply killing  an unloved, unwanted animal without mercy, without compassion. What you will hear in the video below is not a: "good death".

Stop Gassing

Stop Gassing!

American Humane believes that euthanizing shelter animals by carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide is inhumane to the animal and harmful to humans. American Humane considers euthanasia by injection (EBI) to be the only acceptable and humane means of euthanasia for all shelter animals.

(this Video is from YouTube. The video that was originally with this blog could not be embibbed here)

Most shelter workers wish to hold and comfort a frightened animal in its final moments of life. That act may be the only kindness the animal has ever known. In contrast, even with vigilant oversight, euthanizing any animal by means of a carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide gas chamber is inhumane to all animals, especially medium and large dogs, and is demoralizing to the shelter workers. Such outdated and cruel practices also create a public outcry and demean the very purpose of an animal shelter. Download American Humane’s fact sheet comparing the gas chamber to EBI.

A Michigan gas chamber.
A Michigan gas chamber.

It is a national tragedy that 3 to 4 million shelter animals must be euthanized every year. Until a solution is reached, the final moments for these animals must be humane. That’s why American Humane is a leader in training animal welfare professionals on proper EBI techniques.

Banning Gas Chambers: A Fight You Can Help Us Win

Currently, only nine states have officially banned all forms of gassing for all types of animals in shelters: Delaware, Illinois, Maine, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia and Wyoming. Starting in 2009, American Humane launched an intensive legislative initiative to ban gas chambers in animal shelters and will continue in this work until the gassing ends.
To help our efforts, American Humane recently commissioned a study comparing the cost of EBI and gas chambers that proves EBI is less costly to communities. Using data from an animal sheltering organization, the study shows that the cost to use carbon monoxide poisoning is $4.98 per animal. The cost to use EBI, however, is only $2.29 per animal. Download a copy of the EBI cost study.

What Can You Do?

If you live in a state that still allows gas chamber euthanasia, you can do the following:
  • Contact your local shelter to determine its euthanasia practice. If the shelter uses gas, politely ask the shelter director and your county commissioners to transition to EBI.
  • Start a petition to send to your county commissioners, calling for your local shelter to transition to EBI.
  • Involve the local media to drum up additional community support for a transition.
  • Talk to one of American Humane’s EBI trainers to gain a better understanding of the technique and the training that is available to euthanasia technicians. Contact
  • Share American Humane’s resources with the shelter, and let shelter management know that American Humane is available as a resource in transitioning to EBI.
  • Contact your state legislators -- particularly if you are in a county that uses the gas chamber -- and gauge their interest in sponsoring a gas chamber ban bill. Contact American Humane’s Office of Public Policy at if you need assistance.
April 2010: Stay tuned for an updated action alert to send to Michigan legislators.

Monday, April 5, 2010

The Philosophy of Animal Rights



The other animals humans eat, use in science, hunt, trap, and exploit in a variety of ways, have a life of their own that is of importance to them apart from their utility to us. They are not only in the world, they are aware of it. What happens to them matters to them. Each has a life that fares better or worse for the one whose life it is.

That life includes a variety of biological, individual, and social needs. The satisfaction of these needs is a source of pleasure, their frustration or abuse, a source of pain. In these fundamental ways, the nonhuman animals in labs and on farms, for example, are the same as human beings. And so it is that the ethics of our dealings with them, and with one another, must acknowledge the same fundamental moral principles.

At its deepest level, human ethics is based on the independent value of the individual: The moral worth of any one human being is not to be measured by how useful that person is in advancing the interest of other human beings. To treat human beings in ways that do not honor their independent value is to violate that most basic of human rights: the right of each person to be treated with respect.

The philosophy of animal rights demands only that logic be respected. For any argument that plausibly explains the independent value of human beings implies that other animals have this same value, and have it equally. And any argument that plausibly explains the right of humans to be treated with respect, also implies that these other animals have this same right, and have it equally, too.

It is true, therefore, that women do not exist to serve men, blacks to serve whites, the poor to serve the rich, or the weak to serve the strong. The philosophy of animal rights not only accepts these truths, it insists upon and justifies them.

But this philosophy goes further. By insisting upon and justifying the independent value and rights of other animals, it gives scientifically informed and morally impartial reasons for denying that these animals exist to serve us.

Once this truth is acknowledged, it is easy to understand why the philosophy of animal rights is uncompromising in its response to each and every injustice other animals are made to suffer.

It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands in the case of animals used in science, for example, but empty cages: not "traditional" animal agriculture, but a complete end to all commerce in the flesh of dead animals; not "more humane" hunting and trapping, but the total eradication of these barbarous practices.

For when an injustice is absolute, one must oppose it absolutely. It was not "reformed" slavery that justice demanded, not "re- formed" child labor, not "reformed" subjugation of women. In each of these cases, abolition was the only moral answer. Merely to reform injustice is to prolong injustice.

The philosophy of animal rights demands this same answer-- abolition--in response to the unjust exploitation of other animals. It is not the details of unjust exploitation that must be changed. It is the unjust exploitation itself that must be ended, whether on the farm, in the lab, or among the wild, for example. The philosophy of animal rights asks for nothing more, but neither will it be satisfied with anything less.

10 Reasons FOR Animal Rights

and Their Explanation

1.The philosophy of animal rights is rational

Explanation: It is not rational to discriminate arbitrarily. And discrimination against nonhuman animals is arbitrary. It is wrong to treat weaker human beings, especially those who are lacking in normal human intelligence, as "tools" or "renewable resources" or "models" or "commodities." It cannot be right, therefore, to treat other animals as if they were "tools," "models and the like, if their psychology is as rich as (or richer than) these humans. To think otherwise is irrational.

"To describe an animal as a physico-​​chemical system of extreme complexity is no doubt perfectly correct, except that it misses out on the 'animalness' of the animal."

-- E.F.Schumacher

2.The philosophy of animal rights is scientific

Explanation: The philosophy of animal rights is respectful of our best science in general and evolutionary biology in particular. The latter teaches that, in Darwin's words, humans differ from many other animals "in degree," not in kind." Questions of line drawing to one side, it is obvious that the animals used in laboratories, raised for food, and hunted for pleasure or trapped for profit, for example, are our psychological kin. This is no fantasy, this is fact, proven by our best science.

"There is no fundamental difference between humans and the higher mammals in their mental faculties"

-- Charles Darwin

3.The philosophy of animal rights is unprejudiced

Racists are people who think that the members of their race are superior to the members of other races simply because the former belong to their (the "superior") race. Sexists believe that the members of their sex are superior to the members of the opposite sex simply because the former belong to their (the "superior") sex. Both racism and sexism are paradigms of unsupportable bigotry. There is no "superior" or "inferior" sex or race. Racial and sexual differences are biological, not moral, differences.

The same is true of speciesism -- the view that members of the species Homo sapiens are superior to members of every other species simply because human beings belong to one's own (the "superior") species. For there is no "superior" species. To think otherwise is to be no less predjudiced than racists or sexists.

"If you can justify killing to eat meat, you can justify the conditions of the ghetto. I cannot justify either one."

-- Dick Gregory

4.The philosophy of animal rights is justice

Justice is the highest principle of ethics. We are not to commit or permit injustice so that good may come, not to violate the rights of the few so that the many might benefit. Slavery allowed this. Child labor allowed this. Most examples of social injustice allow this. But not the philosophy of animal rights, whose highest principle is that of justice: No one has a right to benefit as a result of violating another's rights, whether that "other" is a human being or some other animal.

"The reasons for legal intervention in favor of children apply not less strongly to the case of those unfortunate slaves -- the (other) animals"

- John Stuart Mill

5.The philosophy of animal rights is compassionate

A full human life demands feelings of empathy and sympathy -- in a word, compassion -- for the victims of injustice -- whether the victims are humans or other animals. The philosophy of animal rights calls for, and its acceptance fosters the growth of, the virtue of compassion. This philosophy is, in Lincoln's words, "the way of a whole human being."

"Compassion in action may be the glorious possibility that could protect our crowded, polluted planet ."

-- Victoria Moran

6.The philosophy of animal rights is unselfish

The philosophy of animal rights demands a commitment to serve those who are weak and vulnerable -- those who, whether they are humans or other animals, lack the ability to speak for or defend themselves, and who are in need of protection against human greed and callousness. This philosophy requires this commitment, not because it is in our self-interest to give it, but because it is right to do so. This philosophy therefore calls for, and its acceptance fosters the growth of, unselfish service.

"We need a moral philosophy in which the concept of love, so rarely mentioned now by philosophers, can once again be made central."

-- Iris Murdoch

7.The philosophy of animal rights is individually fulfilling

All the great traditions in ethics, both secular and religious, emphasize the importance of four things: knowledge, justice, compassion, and autonomy. The philosophy of animal rights is no exception. This philosophy teaches that our choices should be based on knowledge, should be expressive of compassion and justice, and should be freely made. It is not easy to achieve these virtues, or to control the human inclinations toward greed and indifference. But a whole human life is imposssible without them. The philosophy of animal rights both calls for, and its acceptance fosters the growth of, individual self-​​fulfillment.​​

"Humaneness is not
a dead external precept, but a living impulse from within; not self-​​sacrifice,​​ but self-​​fulfillment.​​"​​

-- Henry Salt

8.The philosophy of animal rights is socially progressive

The greatest impediment to the flourishing of human society is the exploitation of other animals at human hands. This is true in the case of unhealthy diets, of the habitual reliance on the "whole animal model" in science, and of the many other forms animal exploitation takes. And it is no less true of education and advertising, for example, which help deaden the human psyche to the demands of reason, impartiality, compassion, and justice. In all these ways (and more), nations remain profoundly backward because they fail to serve the true interests of their citizens.

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be measured by the way its animals are treated."

-- Mahatma Gandhi

9.The philosophy of animal rights is environmentally​ wise

The major cause of environmental degradation, including the greenhouse effect, water pollution, and the loss both of arable land and top soil, for example, can be traced to the exploitation of animals. This same pattern exists throughout the broad range of environmental problems, from acid rain and ocean dumping of toxic wastes, to air pollution and the destruction of natural habitat. In all these cases, to act to protect the affected animals (who are, after all, the first to suffer and die from these environmental ills), is to act to protect the earth.

"Until we establish a felt sense of kinship between our own species and those fellow mortals who share with us the sun and shadow of life on this agonized planet, there is no hope for other species, there is no hope for the environment, and there is no hope for ourselves."

-- Jon Wynne-Tyson

10.The philosophy of animal rights is peace-loving

The fundamental demand of the philosophy of animal rights is to treat humans and other animals with respect. To do this requires that we not harm anyone just so that we ourselves or others might benefit. This philosophy therefore is totally opposed to military aggression. It is a philosophy of peace. But it is a philosophy that extends the demand for peace beyond the boundaries of our species. For there is a war being waged, every day, against countless millions of nonhuman animals. To stand truly for peace is to stand firmly against speciesism. It is wishful thinking to believe that there can be "peace in the world" if we fail to bring peace to our dealings with other animals.

"If by some miracle in all our struggle the earth is spared from nuclear holocaust, only justice to every living thing will save humankind."

-- Alice Walker

10 Reasons AGAINST

Animal Rights and Their Replies

1. You are equating animals and humans, when, in fact, humans and animals differ greatly.

We are not saying that humans and other animals are equal in every way. For example, we are not saying that dogs and cats can do calculus, or that pigs and cows enjoy poetry. What we are saying is that, like humans, many other animals are psychological beings, with an experiential welfare of their own. In this sense, we and they are the same. In this sense, therefore, despite our many differences, we and they are equal.

"All the arguments to prove man's superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering, the animals are our equals."

-- Peter Singer

2. You are saying that every human and every other animal has the same rights, which is absurd. Chickens cannot have the right to vote, nor can pigs have a right to higher education.

We are not saying that humans and other animals always have the same rights. Not even all human beings have the same rights. For example, people with serious mental disadvantages do not have a right to higher education. What we are saying is that these and other humans share a basic moral right with other animals -- namely, the right to be treated with respect.

"It is the fate of every truth to be an object of ridicule when it is first acclaimed."

-- Albert Schweitzer

3. If animals have rights, then so do vegetables, which is absurd.

Many animals are like us: they have a psychological
welfare of their own. Like us, therefore, these animals have a right to be treated with respect. On the other hand, we have no reason, and certainly no scientific one, to believe that carrots and tomatoes, for example, bring a psychological presence to the world. Like all other vegetables, carrots and tomatoes lack anything resembling a brain or central nervous system. Because they are deficient in these respects, there is no reason to think of vegetables as psychological beings, with the capacity to experience pleasure and pain, for example. It is for these reasons that one can rationally affirm rights in the case of animals and deny them in the case of vegetables.

"The case for animal rights depends only on the need for sentiency."

-- Andrew Linzey

4. Where do you draw the line? If primates and rodents have rights, then so do slugs and amoebas, which is absurd.

It often is not easy to know exactly where to "draw the line." For example, we cannot say exactly how old someone must be to be old, or how tall someone must be to be tall. However, we can say, with certainty, that someone who is eighty-eight is old, and that another person who is 7'1" is tall. Similarly, we cannot say exactly where to draw the line when it comes to those animals who have a psychology. But we can say with absolute certainty that, wherever one draws the line on scientific grounds, primates and rodents are on one side of it (the psychological side), whereas slugs and amoebas are on the other -- which does not mean that we may destroy them unthinkingly.

"In the relations of humans with the animals, with the flowers, with all the objects of creation, there is a whole great ethic scarcely seen as yet."

-- Victor Hugo

5. But surely there are some animals who can experience pain but lack a unified psychological identity. Since these animals do not have a right to be treated with respect, the philosophy of animal rights implies that we can treat them in any way we choose.

It is true that some animals, like shrimp and clams, may be capable of experiencing pain yet lack most other psychological capacities. If this is true, then they will lack some of the rights that other animals possess. However, there can be no moral justification for causing anyone pain, if it is unnecessary to do so. And since it is not necessary that humans eat shrimp, clams, and similar animals, or utilize them in other ways, there can be no moral justification for causing them the pain that invariably accompanies such use.

"The question is not, 'Can they reason?' nor 'Can they talk?' but 'Can they suffer?"

-- Jeremy Bentham

6. Animals don't respect our rights. Therefore, humans have no obligation to respect their rights either.

There are many situations in which an individual who has rights is unable to respect the rights of others. This is true of infants, young children, and mentally enfeebled and deranged human beings. In their case we do not say that it is perfectly all right to treat them disrespectfully​ because they do not honor our rights. On the contrary, we recognize that we have a duty to treat them with respect, even though they have no duty to treat us in the same way.

What is true of cases involving infants, children, and the other humans mentioned, is no less true of cases involving other animals, Granted, these animals do not have a duty to respect our rights. But this does not erase or diminsh our obligation to respect theirs.

"The time will come when people such as I will look upon the murder of (other) animals as they no look upon the murder of human beings."

-- Leonardo Da Vinci

7.God gave humans dominion over other animals. This is why we can do anything to them that we wish, including eat them.

Not all religions represent humans as having "dominion" over other animals, and even among those that do, the notion of "dominion" should be understood as unselfish guardianship, not selfish power. Humans are to be as loving toward all of creation as God was in creating it. If we loved the animals today in the way humans loved them in the Garden of Eden, we would not eat them. Those who respect the rights of animals are embarked on a journey back to Eden -- a journey back to a proper love for God's creation.

"And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree,
in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."

-- Genesis 1:29

8.Only humans have immortal souls. This gives us the right to treat the other animals as we wish.

Many religions teach that all animals, not just humans, have immortal souls. However, even if only humans are immortal, this would only prove that we live forever whereas other animals do not. And this fact (if it is a fact) would increase, not decrease, our obligation to insure that this -- the only life other animals have -- be as long and as good as possible.

"There is no religion without love, and people may talk as much as they like about their religion, but if it does not teach them to be good and kind to other animals as well as humans, it is all a sham."

-- Anna Sewell

9. If we respect the rights of animals, and do not eat or exploit them in other ways, then what are we supposed to do with all of them? In a very short time they will be running through our streets and homes.

Somewhere between 4-5 billion animals are raised and slaughtered for food every year, just in the United States. The reason for this astonishingly high number is simple: there are consumers who eat very large amounts of animal flesh. The supply of animals meets the demand of buyers.

When the philosophy of animal rights triumphs, however, and people become vegetarians, we need not fear that there will be billions of cows and pigs grazing in the middle of our cities or in our living rooms. Once the financial incentive for raising billions of these animals evaporates, there simply will no be not be millions of these animals. And the same reasoning applies in other cases -- in the case of animals bred for research, for example. When the philosophy of animal rights prevails, and this use of these animals cease, then the financial incentive for breeding millions of them will cease, too.

"The worst sin toward our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them.That is the essence of inhumanity"

-- George Bernard Shaw

10. Even if other animals do have moral rights and should be protected, there are more important things that need our attention -- world hunger and child abuse, for example, apartheid, drugs, violence to women, and the plight of the homeless. After we take care of these problems, then we can worry about animals rights.

The animal rights movement stands as part of, not apart from, the human rights movement. The same philosophy that insists upon and defends the rights of nonhuman animals also insists upon and defends the rights of human beings.

At a practical level, moreover, the choice thoughtful people face is not between helping humans or helping other animals. One can do both. People do not need to eat animals in order to help the homeless, for example, any more than they need to use cosmetics that have been tested on animals in order to help children. In fact, people who do respect the rights of nonhuman animals, by not eating them, will be healthier, in which case they actually will be able to help human beings even more.

"I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being."

-- Abraham Lincoln



Posted by, I Want Changes To Happen!

Free Veg Starter Kit Chained Dogs

blogger templates | Make Money Online