While the world focuses on the casualties of the “War of Terror,” I would like to bring to light the plight of another victim of the other propaganda war at home; the war of Animal Huggers against those who dared to cherish the gifts of mother nature. Since last week, a lot of negative press has been focused on Atlanta Falcons Quarterback Michael Vick for his alleged involvement in dogfight and related gambling. While our legal system provides the basic decency of assuming innocence until proven guilty, the Media along with the Animal Huggers has once again assumed the multiple roles of the prosecutor, the judge, the jury and the executioner (remember the Duke LAX lynchings?)
Instead of assuming the responsibility of being an unbiased party to an issue and exploring evidence from all sides and presenting it to its audience, the media in partnership with the Animal Huggers has already tried Michael Vick and has declared him guilty. The punishment as decided by the loonies at PETA and the Humane Society must be the instant sacking of Vick from the NFL along with the cancellation of all corporate contracts. But, is Michael Vick really guilty; and if that is the case, is the law that he supposedly violated consistent with other federal and constitutional standards? For those whose eyes are already squirting blood as they read this, let me save you the agony by declaring the laws under which Michael Vick has been charged to be federally inconsistent and constitutionally voidable.
During the recent pet-food contaminations, some out-of-work trial attorneys who did have the time and resources to bring forward their multi-million dollar lawsuits/daylight robbery attempts were turned away by the fact that federal law treats pets as personal property and does not attach any value other than what markets would assign them. Even if Michael Vick did indulge in dogfights, he is fully entitled to do so because the dogs were his personal property and those that weren’t could be considered as a matter of litigation as long as they were involved in dogfights against their owners' wishes. As cruel as it may sound, the truth is those dogs were someone’s property just like the cows, hogs and chickens that end up on dinner tables and in fast food restaurants. The laws are inconsistent if they consider someone's exercising of his or her property rights as inhumane and barbaric in one case and legitimate business practice in another.
The other aspect of the allegations against Michael Vick is that of betting on dogfights. Now, since when did gambling become a Federal issue? From my last check, we were a Republic and not an empire of fifty vassal states who owed their loyalty to a King in the District of Columbia. Gambling is a state issue and not a Federal one. The Federal Government is not authorized by the constitution to legislate on issues such as gambling. The very fact that we are once again literally lynching a Black man on the basis of unjust and inconsistent laws while everyone is cheering for his execution should be a matter of concern for every citizen who still believes in something called constitution and equality for all. Where are the Reverend Twins now?
Now, I am no scholar of law. But, I have placed all my faith in the Constitution that protects my very rights that I am exercising as I plead for an innocent man. In most cases, when laws are found to be inconsistent with other federal laws and constitutional standards, the cases are dismissed by the courts. But, in those cases, the courts rule by logic. In this case, the courts could rule by emotions as PETA puts another mutt from an animal shelter on camera during every available segment and space in the media.
The only thing sexy about PETA and the Humane Society are their ladies who are always more than willing to strip and protest against Animal Cruelty. Any organization that publicly protests against or for something while advocating litigation and legislation to promote their goals could be considered an activist organization by most logical standards. PETA and the Humane Society did not spare even their own brethren at the recent Live Earth concerts by protesting against the hamburgers being served during the event. Let me drift away a little bit. I visited California a month before I moved here for graduate school. At the grocery store I saw something called Boca Burgers. I asked a "fruit loop" standing next to me; what's a Boca Burger. Oh! It's a veggie-burger, he replied. I am sorry! According to my last check, anything that does not come with a half-pound freshly-ground beef patty, ripe tomatoes, pickles, topped up with lots of artery-clogging cheese, fails to qualify to be called a burger. Ask the guys at Cheeburger-Cheeburger at Auburn to show you how to make a burger. Coming back to the point, the Animal Huggers show no love for anyone who does not wish to hug animals but may agree on 99 other things. By the way, while the Tree Huggers at Live Earth did not miss the opportunity to fly in private jets and helicopters, their organizers may have been trying to make a point by serving hamburgers because killing cows would reduce the content of methane gas which is a greenhouse gas and is emitted by cows.
I do not wish to make my point that Animal Huggers are loonies because they dared to protest the non-crimes of Michael Vick. I think that Animal Huggers are loonies because their priorities are so misplaced. In these troubled times, human suffering is being ignored by them while they promote animal welfare. Almost all atrocities against human survival are being conducted by some government or the other around the world by the means of legitimate warfare or illegitimate genocide. From all the mistakes of the last century we seem to have learned nothing. Whether it was Adolf Hitler’s concentration camps, or the murder camps run by Khmer Rouge and Che Guevara, we have stepped into the new century by waging wars that have resulted in genocide-quality casualty figures. And, all that PETA and the Human Society can protest about is Michael Vick’s treatment of animals. Who is the loony here?
Talking about the non-PETA loonies who claim to be outraged at the suffering the poor pooches because we are a pet-loving nation, I want to bring to the discussion another unparalleled human suffering that gets dismissed as right-wing extremist propaganda. Until I moved to San Diego I was unsure about my position on the issue of a woman's right to choose whether her unborn baby lives or dies. My Libertarian leanings would push me into letting women find an easy resolution for their promiscuity.
Then a few days ago, I was driving by a Planned Parenthood building off the Interstate-8. When I was a child, my family lived near a meat shop. I used to have an eerie feeling every time I passed by the shop when I heard the whining chickens. For the first time in twenty years, that eerie feeling revisited me. For some reason, I have been having sleepless nights. The chickens at the meat shop at least had an opportunity to express their displeasure. What about the protests of the kids that lay in the dumpster outside the Planned Parenthood building?
Now I am not expressing any subtle support for the loonies who knock off abortion doctors and firebomb abortion clinics. But, the suffering of the 126,000 lives that are extinguished every day is a story that deserves to be told, but fails to find any place in the protests of the Animal Huggers. I do not wish to turn this discussion into an abortion debate. But, I just cannot comprehend how people, activist organizations and the media have the time to discuss and protest an issue as meritless as dog-fighting and gambling. On the other hand, how can our legal system dispense its time and resources to litigate a case that is based on laws that contradict other federal laws and standards, while we have a government that is running like an out of control beer truck?
If we scratch the surface to look deeper into the people who are leading the charge, we realize these are the same people, who recently brought down Don Imus. Do you see the pattern? They are bringing down a successful man by blackmailing his sponsors and business associates into severing all ties with him. Just like they wanted MSNBC and CBS to fire Don Imus, they want the Atlanta Falcons and the NFL to fire Michael Vick. If you do not trust me, turn on Air America now or read the coverage of the case by any left-wing media outlet. The protests have nothing to do with animal cruelty. These are protests against success and the concept of the "American Dream." These are the same people who go after just about anyone who made it in this country, as long as it is not John Edwards getting a $400 haircut because he panders to their socialist seductions.
What Michael Vick allegedly did, was done to Animals that could rightfully be considered his or other participant's private property. If he caused agony and death to his pet dogs, how is it any different from a butcher who slaughters and sells his cows, chickens or hogs? I don't believe in any such thing as a humane butcher. When you are about to bleed something to death which would cause eternal suffering to the beast or bird, how can you call it humane? Look at your dinner plate before you feel upset about what Michael Vick allegedly did.
What has become of our government? And how did we let it happen? How did we reach a point in time that our government has found the time and justification to legislate on issues like dog-fighting and cock-fighting? The purpose of the government is not to pass new laws. The purpose of the government was supposed to defend and adhere to the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. America has turned from being a model society to becoming an Orwellian society where the government manages to put a smiley face on its autocratic legislations and tyrannical activities.
If the Federal Judge who will hear the case, has the least bit of decency and responsibility left within him to adhere to the constitution that he or she swore to protect and uphold, he or she must throw out the case immediately and censure the U.S Attorney who has the temerity to build a case on allegations that violate Michael Vick's property and constitutional rights and contradicts other established Federal laws and standards. Our society promotes civilized behavior by allowing us the freedom to abstain from activities that may cause suffering of animals. Legislating of human activities that do not cause harm to other humans in our society lacks the capability of improving human behavior. Human behavior cannot be legislated, but may be motivated by the means of a positive message. The positive message here is that if you do not like dog-fighting don't participate in it. No one is forcing you to pump your Rottweiler with hormones so that he can tear apart your neighbor's Chihuahua. If Michael Vick did so, that was the choice he was entitled to make. If there is any issue that should be up for litigation, it is not Michael Vick's alleged activities; but it is the laws and legislations upon which that case against him is based.
July 26, 2007
