America, Inc.

                                                                                     

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure Domestic Tranquility, provide for the Common Defense, promote the General Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 A consummate democratic government would not make a profit, not take any losses and cost exactly as much as is necessary to provide the services it is expected to provide. This is hardly quintessential and exemplary for businesses. It is not apropos for an agglomerate of businesses to be concerned regarding a safe workplace, employee morale, providing benefits and appropriate salaries to workers. An innumerable amount of businesses could care less about the environmental impacts they beget and could care less about whether their employees had the right to pursue life, liberty, property and happiness. Unions are thorns to business, but a great benefit to our fellow citizens and apart of America’s moral fiber. A business seeks profit, nothing more, nothing less. Businesses are a dictatorship. Democracy in America is evocative of an Oligarchy as it is, why would we ever envisage it a business? An Oligarchy is a form of power structure in which power lies with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, corporate, or military control. Aristotle pioneered the use of the term. Corporate oligarchy is a form of power, governmental or operational, where such power effectively rests with a small, elite group of inside individuals, sometimes from a small group of educational institutions, or influential economic entities or devices, such as banks, commercial entities that act in complicity with, or at the whim of the oligarchy, often with little or no regard for constitutionally protected prerogative. This is the antithesis of democracy and not what was intended when this country's founding principles were formalized. Without fail, the notion of running the government like a business always comes back, this time with a vengeance. Whether we are citizens, customers or shareholders depends on our profitability. If we're customers, the objective is to obtain from us as much profit as possible. As shareholders, the objective would be to obtain for us as much return as possible. As citizens, the objective is to woo us for votes, pleasing us collectively as much as possible. The culprits in America transitioned from "welfare queens in designer jeans" to "corporate welfare kings in chauffeured limousines," and with rhetorical genius on behalf of the Republicans, back again; from the people's focus on "the undeserving poor" to the people's outrage in support of "the deserving rich." And especially during a time when unemployment and healthcare cost has skyrocketed, it’s amazing how the Republicans spun the sentiment. It’s nothing short of brilliance on their part and blindness on behalf of the citizens, with some ignorant desperation thrown on top. It's like trying to hit a pinata, blindfolded, to get the prosperity to trickle down except the man who handed you the stick spun you to hit the other people waiting their turn.

 The Republicans are preaching "Less government in business and more business in government" (Warren Harding), or "the business of America is business" (Calvin Coolidge) and managed to make school teachers and single mothers needing nutritional assistance the enemy that has caused the country to delve into the economic abyss it has. Businesses exist to turn a profit providing goods and services only as it is profitable to do so, with prices set alienating and depriving a huge number of people, entire classes, from obtaining those goods and services. Governments are too provide public goods and services—that has deemed people's right to possess. I read from a satirist, in not so many words-old, sick, poor and very young people, don’t produce anything of economic value. They consume goods and services. The optimal economic growth policy isn’t to slash Social Security or Medicare benefits,Welfare or Medicaid- it’s to euthanize them and harvest their organs. Of course, The Path to Prosperity, proposed by the Republicans makes a declaration to eliminate Medicare. Just to mention, over 20 million families take care of an elderly parent and I am one of them. Providing for two aging baby boomer, terminally ill parents-watching as they have their benefits cut, go without medication for stretches at a time and all of us going into debt with each passing day. My stepfather has leukemia and his medication was dropped for three months, until I managed to get the Leukemia society to help out until his Medicare reverses the “donut hole” he was put into. Luckily, he remained in remission, but the outcome could have been a lot worse in the amount of time that lapsed with a blood cancer. Some of my mother’s medications have been dropped by Medicare, as she needs dialysis and is awaiting a kidney transplant. She is now being billed an obscene amount of money a week as copay for those treatments. Both of my parents are on Social Security.What is being proposed by the Republicans is going to leave millions of seniors destitute, if not dead. As noted above, businesses are supposed to turn a profit. Businesses provide profitable services and try to maximize revenue. However, Republican Congressman Todd Rokita, told MSNBC: "We have too much revenue as it is. We spend too much." His transition to, “too much revenue” to “too much spending” delineates much. Think Progress noted, the last time Republicans insinuated too much revenue flowing into the government, the problem was solved by creating the deficits of today.“More than any other reason", President Bush justified his 2001 tax cuts by claiming the budget surplus President Clinton created was actually bad. “A surplus in tax revenue, after all, means that taxpayers have been overcharged,” Bush explained. Of course, the Bush tax cuts are one of the largest contributors to today’s budget deficit by depriving the government of revenue in conjunction with increased spending. Let’s give an example of such; in 1961 the percent of profits corporations paid in taxes was 47.7 percent as opposed to 2011 in which that percentage was 11.1. Republicans have exhibited that the goal is to introduce the worst excesses of business—the incentive to poor service, the race to the bottom on wages, benefits, and workplace rights—and leave out the ideologically inconvenient bits like growth and the importance of revenue.

 It’s time for an about face of thought pertaining to government run like a business. In lieu of trying to have government utilize the most destructive logics of business; what should be emphasized is as Corey Robin writes in The Nation, "Unveil the ways that the unfettered profit motive hurts us and makes us less free, as individuals and as a society". Or, as President Obama put it himself when the microphone was left on in the notorious “Do you think we’re stupid” video, HERE, pound it home, saying “When Paul Ryan says his priority is to make sure he's just being America's accountant; this is the same guy that voted for two wars that were unpaid for, voted for the Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for, voted for the prescription drug bill that cost as much as my health care bill -- but wasn't paid for...So it's not on the level.” Paul Ryan is praised as the Republicans' best economist, but it’s not economics at the heart. He presents nothing that economists could recognize as being related to the discipline of economics. The Heritage Foundation cranked out a study to support him, but that organization has become famous for the support of far-right schemes. The fact is that Ryan is invoking the theories of Ayn Rand, a novelist, who offered an image of society that is flipping Marxism upside down. Paul Ryan has said, “The reason I got into public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker...it would be Ayn Rand.” He requires his staffers to study Rand's Nietzschian tracts. Ayn Rand praised the people at the top of the economic pyramid – corporate leaders, bankers, the rich-- as the people who "contribute the most to all those below them" and suggest they receive too little in return. Also suggesting people at the bottom contribute nothing and are useless parasites; without those at the top, the poor starve in "hopeless ineptitude". Rand's idea is to direct more rewards to the creative few and to destroy the welfare state, which prevents people at the top from unleashing their creativity. I'm sure I do not have to annotate and rationalize how much further from the truth and reality that is. Ayn Rand’s philosophy is as follows- 1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality, 2. Epistemology:  Reason, 3. Ethics:  Self-interest, 4. Politics:  Capitalism.If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1.”Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and eat it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”, Objectivism holds that: Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings wishes, hopes or fears. Reason is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders; in a system full of capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

 When has the GOP embraced separation of church and state as well as based social ideologies on fact instead of fear or feelings? Where has the GOP not initiated physical force against others and nations? Where have Christian Conservatives in particular preached to not sacrifice themselves as Jesus did? Here’s the deal, in a stretch of the imagination, if one would like the government to be run like a business or be practically nonexistent providing nothing but defense (as unconstitutional as that is) and based on Rand’s philosophy then social debates over issues must come to an end.  Complete separation of church and state, same sex marriage would no longer be a topic up for debate because government would not be involved, no more abortion debates, no debates over ethical science funding, drugs would be legalized, no more subsidies to farmers’ for genetically engineered crops, no more foreign aid, no more corporate welfare and bailouts- because there are no morals in business and all of the above would be contradictory to Rand’s philosophies. Ryan's plan based on Ayn Rand’s writing is about reordering society not about wiping out the deficit. This philosophy is popular amongst Tea Partiers because they are convinced with conviction that they are being punished and stifled because government helps poor people and provides social services. Ryan is serving up a large dose of Social Darwinism at a time when such selfish and ugly sentiments are very popular. Governor Rick Scott of Florida is a notorious business man having planned and is executing running the state as much like a business as possible. Having below a 50 percent approval rate, being booed at baseball games, and people wanting to recall him, it’s clear electing a business man, not to mention having had a company with the largest Medicare and Medicaid fraud in history, to government, has caused citizens to realize the error of their ways. Scott's proposals would result in job losses for 300 thousand people (check out the pink slip rick website, HERE, along with it's ever amusing photos of the Governor) with major tax cuts to grow the private sector along with attempting to privatize Medicaid which will inadvertently make profits for his company, Solantic, which are urgent care centers that will take most of the Medicaid vouchers. The company was put in his wife’s name in order to avoid a conflict of interest; however some democrats are suing suggesting it still is in fact a conflict. I concur. Scott spent 70 million of his own dollars of his total 200 million net worth for a position that pays 200 grand. He is going to make that money back somewhere plus a profit and it’s through his new legislation. Not to mention his cuts to education, law enforcement and care for the disabled. 

 Scott’s budget proposal has republicans up in the air and democrats in a dead faint on the ground. Scott turned down the funding that was already approved for the high speed rail project that would have created thousands of jobs, hinting that his goal is not just running the state like a business but special interest, social engineering and conservative social agendas as well. Veering away from just models of economics and Rand's philosophies. Let’s hope Scott does not manage the state like his healthcare company where he had to pay the government 1.7 billion dollars because of fraud by Columbia/HCA. Hopefully, education won’t be privatized — like for-profit colleges and universities, which recently have been exposed for enrolling unqualified students with false promises and bombarding them with debt. Hopefully, government services won’t be turned into fee for services, for example 911 or the fire department, as seen in Tennessee.  In rural Tennessee, firefighters let a house burn down because the owner hadn't paid a $75 fee. The county does not have a county-wide firefighting service, but South Fulton offers fire coverage to rural residents for a fee. Gene Cranick of Obion County and his family lost all of their possessions in the Sept. 29 fire, along with three dogs and a cat. Cranick says he told the operator he would pay whatever is necessary to have the fire put out. His offer wasn't accepted, he said Firefighters did eventually show up, but only to fight the fire on the neighboring property, whose owner had paid the fee. Read the full article HERE. Absolutely a deplorable decision made on the fire fighters part. Benjamin Franklin was the first to start fire services and the created the first volunteer fire department. It’s such a cliché, but what are we really teaching the future generations with situations such as this? I'll tell you. I read about Kidzania, a multinational chain of family entertainment centers where kids try out professions that have been downsized, simplified, and made fun, not too long ago. It operates out of eight different countries and is planned to come the the United States by 2013. Kidzania is preparing kids for future jobs in corporations, but even have the corporations themselves be a governmental entity and have the children become perfectly immune to the concept. Children are called KidZanians, the citizens of the nation. They appropriately have a national anthem and a flag. Each park has a congress of 14 children, which meet once a month and take trips to see the sponsors of the park, as well as the various other parks around the world. The adult management uses governmental titles; the senior manager of each franchise is called the “Governor.” Add to that, the language of its ever prospering and growing nation-state and its legislation, including its very own bill of rights. At the center of the concept and the business of KidZania lies the motive of corporate consumerism. The rights to brand and help create activities at each franchise are sold off to real corporations. When learning factory work, it’s in a job bottling Coca-Cola, and when working at a restaurant, that “restaurant” has golden arches. The dentist office is sponsored by Crest. Some sponsors fit awkwardly in the park: selling Chevrolet to children is tough. The answer in these situations is often to put up a few computers in a booth where children can interact with the brand—in the Chevrolet case, by designing a customized Camaro. But KidZania seems to fail to emphasize the idea that education is important for reasons other than as a way to get a better-paying job, as if learning only pays off if it pays in cash. Dr. Susan Linn, director of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood and a psychologist at Harvard Medical School says, “child-driven, hands-on creative play is the foundation of learning, creativity and constructive problem-solving. When adults drive children’s play, those benefits are removed.” It’s just a scaled down version of our own world, except it’s creating the customer in place of the citizen right from the start.

 Surely the government’s business model would not resemble the 595,600 companies that closed and 43,546 that went bankrupt in 2008. Feasibly, the government could be modeled after Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, General Motors, Chrysler, Lehman Brothers, WorldCom or the favorite front runner, Enron. Maybe the defense contractor that stock piled costs on weapons programs to the sum of $296 billion dollars?  Hypocrisies amongst conservatives and businesses are ever present when the sh*t hits the fan, so to speak. When corporate profits were astronomical, CEO’s and Republicans ranted and raved about the foundation and impact of private enterprise and how regulation is Satan’s spawn. What happened when the bubble burst? It was a new song "Public-private partnerships” (aka bail-outs) are not only inspired, they are imperative. Again, along with ending the conservative social issues, if welfare and services are to be ended for the people that should include corporate welfare. In fact, former Pres. G.W. Bush held an MBA and his commitment to bringing business principles to the running of government was best encapsulated in these words he spoke on Nov. 2, 2000: "They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some kind of federal program." Wow. And we certainly see where he got us as well. President Obama, having graduated from Harvard with a law degree and specialized in civil rights and constitutional law, on the other hand is accused relentlessly of being a socialist. Truth be told; banks, corporations and Wall Street have done more to deter people’s distrust in American free enterprise than all of the “liberals” and "community organizers" combined. Except as stated above, in strokes of genius rhetoric, creativity and  sentiment that the Republicans have used- managed to turn citizen’s anger towards Main Street, in other words, themselves…against their own interests. Our government and constitution’s objective is not profit: it is service. Our government is just an entity that is not in business to receive revenue for itself but for the common good of its people. Our government is not in business to create its own goals, or to ignore the needs or wishes of the community. Businesses have to be creative and figure ways to strategically come up with ways to increase profit when they're no longer profitable and adhere to a cost-benefit ratio model with self-interest first. Our government is "We the People" and its purpose is to meet public demand through our votes as a business’s purpose, again, is not. In his second inaugural address, the only American ever elected president four times, Franklin D. Roosevelt, spoke these still-timely words: "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics."We can petition our government and expect some useful reaction; we can petition a private business and expect it to continue to do as it pleases, whether or not it happens to be what you wanted, is not of any concern-it’s not a democracy after all.


Maybe Government he thought “Can’t be run like a business or store. “Maybe Government…perhaps…means a little bit more” 

                                                                             

PETA is Black and White in a Rainbow World (Hatchery Law Reform and Continued Awareness for the Ethical Treatment of Animals According to Omnivores)

                                                                             

“Light is meaningful only in relation to darkness, and truth presupposes error. It is these mingled opposites which make it pungent, intoxicating. We only exist in terms of this conflict, in the zone where black and white clash.”The world is not black and white. Many situations are not black and white. I am not comfortable with the mantra either you are with us or against us, circa President Bush; otherwise known as a very traumatic eight years for me. It is an age old argument whether or not to eat meat in response to the abuse happening inside the factory farms, being we are reasonable and morally conscious; and have options for other food sources through our advancement. One of my favorite quotes on the subject is that of Benjamin Franklin, he states “I had stuck to my resolution of not eating animal food... But I had formerly been a great lover of fish, and, when this came hot out of the frying-pan, it smelt admirably well. I balanced sometime between principle and inclination, till I recollected that, when the fish were opened, I saw smaller fish taken out of their stomachs; then thought I, 'If you eat one another, I don't see why we mayn't eat you.' So I dined upon cod very heartily, and continued to eat with other people, returning only now and then occasionally to a vegetable diet. So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do.” PETA is for the ethical treatment of animals as we’ve apprehended it to be. Though it’s often harsh tactics criminalizes people for not choosing the lifestyle of that of a vegan while correlating them to a terrorist, as you’ll read below. Humans are omnivores by nature. There are a number of popular myths about vegetarianism that have no scientific basis. One of these myths is that man is naturally a vegetarian because our bodies resemble herbivores, not carnivores. In fact we are omnivores. Much of the misinformation on the issue of man being a natural vegetarian arises from confusion between taxonomic (in biology, the procedure of classifying organisms in established categories) and dietary characteristics. All the available evidence indicates that the natural human diet is omnivorous and would include meat. We are not, however, required to consume animal protein. We have a choice. I choose to eat meat; understanding the natural ways of the biological world and the natural order of the food chain. Plus, I like hot dogs. By not choosing to persist as a vegan, it is a futile attempt to become a component of PETA. What this post is about, as an omnivore, is not whether to make a determination to espouse a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle for ethical reasons; this is about the sustained abuse and torture of animals by workers and factories and stricter regulations of existing laws and laws that should be proposed, that condemn and criminalize the factories and corporations that perpetuate the behavior, as well as alternative methods of handling the chicks and ducklings in hatcheries. Throughout our agriculture history the first animals to be factory farmed were chickens. The discovery of vitamins and their role in animal nutrition, in the first two decades of the twentieth won't make much of a difference. The changes proposed include telling employees to be more efficient in sending culled chicks to their death via high-speed vacuum, grinding, or gassing — all legal, industry-approved methods.” It’s also stated that 0.1 percent of the 100,000 chicks hatched every day get caught in the machinery. That's 1,100 chicks, just at this one hatchery, being thrown out likecentury, led to vitamin supplements, which allowed chickens to be raised indoors. The discovery of antibiotics and vaccines facilitated raising livestock in larger numbers by reducing disease. Development of hormones allowed for chickens to be produced with bigger breasts to meet the growing demand. Chemicals developed for use in World War II gave rise to synthetic pesticides and all of the above stated advancements and arguments of contention are controversial in themselves, and rightly so.

The videos that caused me to become cognizant of the hatchery horrors, is of Hy-Line hatchery HERE and Cal-Cruz hatchery HERE. It’s disconcerting, disheartening and daunting the imagery that has been compiled and released, having been amassed by undercover documentarians on how major corporations and companies handle the production of animals in the food industry. Evidence of workers who sex chicks-weeding out the males and females-take the chicks, slam them onto the ground, while some are allowed to get stuck in the machinery and others are hosed out and just left for dead on the ground. A definite biological waste and disposal concern in conjunction with the moral aspects of abuse. The machinery the chicks are getting stuck in is a gigantic meat grinder and a machine that identifies the gender of the birds with the use of lasers. The workers phlegmatically carry the newly hatched chicks in baskets to a conveyor belt and dump the chicks for a leisurely ride to get ground up for meat. 150,000 male chicks per day are sorted out by operators known as "sexers" and ground alive because they cannot produce eggs and will not grow fast enough for meat. I was foolishly oblivious of what was done with the male chicks; naïve to believe that they were given to farms or sold at auctions. According to Change.org, “When they turned over the video footage to Santa Cruz County Animal Services Authority and the District Attorney's Office, the follow-up investigation corroborated their evidence and led to the confiscation of 88 ducklings, over half of which had to be euthanized. A year later, the District Attorney's Office said they were not going to prosecute. California is one of the few states where the law doesn't distinguish between pets and food animals. Although the District Attorney's office says the evidence isn't sufficient, it's hard to believe that they wouldn't be pursuing this case if it had happened to puppies or kittens.” The company, Cal Cruz, has been in the industry for 50 years; the owner an upstanding enough citizen, goes on to make some suggestions. “Unless that involves dismantling the machinery or closing the business, it  trash every single day, many of them mutilated and suffering. Brian Collins said (the president of Cal-Cruz),

"If there is some industry standard I'm missing, educate me, or design something better." …That we can, if this is the industry standard. There are other alternatives to what could be done with these newborn animals, regardless if it’s more cost effective to turn them into feed. Hy-Line alleges that its hatchery procedures are supported and approved by the animal veterinary and scientific community, adding “Instantaneous euthanasia by maceration is specifically supported by the American Veterinary Medical Association, Federation of Animal Science Societies, Agriculture Canada, World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), and European Union (EU)”. Not hitting the mark enough, for those who want to enjoy their omelets in good conscience.

 It’s unacceptable and quite traumatizing to watch images of pigs being molested and abused, watch the video of Smithfield Food Products Farm’s HERE and an Iowa pig farm HERE. Both companies were appropriately persecuted. Staying on top of the issue, becoming aware, and not being reduced to complacency is part of the solution. There are right and wrong ways of doing things. It does not make you a hypocrite to support animal rights, be against abuse of animals and the ethical treatment of, and yet still consume meat. It’s understood by most, the capabilities and ranges of emotions and physical sensations and mental abilities animals feel and posses. More than 16 billion animals that are killed for food every year in the U.S. have little legal protection from cruelty that would be illegal if it were inflicted on companion dogs or cats. They are neglected, mutilated, genetically manipulated, put on drug regimens that cause chronic pain and crippling, transported through all weather extremes, and killed in gruesome and violent ways.  Even so-called "free-range" animals are often mutilated without the benefit of painkillers; kept in filthy, disease-ridden sheds; forced to endure long trips to the slaughterhouse without food or water; and killed in the same ways as animals from factory farms” Says PETA. Milk production is being increased from the utilization of bovine growth hormone, first harnessed by Monsanto, and the result of this on the cows is contemptible, highly abusive and not as widely recognized. Clearly it is a whole other argument on the dangers this has to humans. Though this IGF-1 occurs naturally in mothers' milk to be fed to their infants it produces adverse effects in non-infants, behaving as a cancer accelerator in adults and non-infants; this biologically active hormone is associated with breast cancer (correlation shown in premenopausal women), prostate cancer, lung cancer and colon cancers. The choice could be yours, whether or not to consume rBST enhanced milk. However, since we have no way of knowing which products we buy have used these companies’ methods, the decision on whether to consume the milk is arduous, because there are no regulations and no consumer labels put on the products. A fact worthy of note is the FDA, EPA, and USDA is overseen by former heads of Monsanto. Monsanto is a multinational agriculture biotechnology corporation. The cost already involved and what the cost would be projected to be, to provide more humane ways of managing and operating the food production industries and hatcheries, is extensive. Understandably, there is a careful balance of cost and profit. Such choices to be more humane tend to be pricier for consumers. One study suggested that humane improvements instituted by the United Egg Producers cooperative would raise the price of eggs by 8 to 10 cents per dozen -- and animal rights advocates criticize even those improvements as minimal. Prices for free-range chickens run more than 50 percent higher than standard brands.

 The conduct of the workers has to be more efficiently monitored, preferably by an outside party, and not tolerated to any degree, regardless of some arguments that the workers are underpaid. Human Rights Watch has said that slaughterhouse workers have "the most dangerous factory job in America." The industry has refused to do what's necessary to create safe working conditions for its employees, such as slowing down slaughter lines and supplying workers with appropriate safety gear, because these changes could cut into companies' bottom lines. Many workers endure crippling injuries and many have even lost their limbs—or their lives—from working with dangerous meat-processing machines. What it does for the environment is definitely reason enough to have more laws and regulation, in and of itself. Factory farms, and agriculture giants like Monsanto, pollute the air and water for miles in every direction, often spreading contamination and illness to the people who live and work nearby. Chronic sickness, brain damage, poisoned waterways, elevated cancer rates, and even death plague these communities, while the government does nothing to protect citizens or regulate the industry. It's up to Americans to help stop them.  Between 2000 and 2005, agribusinesses funneled more than $140 million to politicians, who helped to ensure that laws that might protect consumers, animals, and the environment did not pass. The federal government does little to protect human health, animal welfare, and our environment from the factory-farming industry's negligence and excess, However PETA has to, and rightly so, from their extremist position, that the only true answer is becoming vegan. Analogous of the way conservatives say abstinence is the solution; to underage pregnancy, disease, etc., and the morally righteous way. The answer is not extremist attitudes and ultimatums. I opt not to eat veal and fois gras, I’ve made the choice to never wear fur due to the fact, most of the fur industries have zero regulation, as seen in the videos of fur farms in China, HERE, where the animals are skinned alive, slammed in to the ground, bludgeoned in the head and thrown into a bin…some still breathing. When I see such things it feels as if pieces of my soul die. I am certainly aware of the films that exist of the abuse against cattle and other animals and you can check them out at the PETA websites or through searches.  A lot of the pharmaceutical companies are required by law to test on animals. Some testing is unreasonable and not necessary in my opinion. I cannot comprehend why Always and Carefree feminine products need to be tested on animals; or 3M and Hugo boss.




 I would be a supportive, active member of PETA to help facilitate an end to torture and abuse of animals, but PETA doesn’t support me. The animal rights group is certainly known for its shocking ads, aggressive tactics and bountiful photos of naked ladies touting vegetarianism, pet adoption and animal birth control. One of the latest posts on its blog still manages to push the envelope, with the aforementioned correlation between a meat eater and a terrorist. Blogger Logan Scherer writes a post about how Ghulam Rasool Khan, who was arrested in India with suspected links to al Qaeda and the Taliban, insists on eating large quantities of meat rather than the vegetarian food served in prison. Behold: a visit from Captain Obvious; As if the world needed another example of the proven link between violence against animals and violence against humans, Ghulam Rasool Khan--a suspected al-Qaida member jailed in India--refuses to eat the vegetarian food served to him, instead demanding "two kg of mutton and one kg of chicken daily." Khan has threatened to go on a hunger strike if he doesn't get his carcasses. But if PETA India's recent request that all jails serve only vegetarian meals is honored, then the bloodthirsty terrorist will be starving himself indefinitely. PETA also posted about how serial killers often torture animals before "graduating" to humans, suggesting that simply eating meat is the same sociopathic behavior as torturing small animals. Ironically, PETA itself was recently classified as a terrorist threat by the USDAR. There was another case in the news of vegan parents allowing their 11 month old child to die of malnutrition. HERE are five known cases of instances of vegan related child deaths. In essence and irony, in the name of not killing any animals, they killed their children. PETA actually suggests higher insurance rates for meat eaters, as if there aren’t enough attacks and singling out of people’s behaviors and on people’s lifestyles. The search for such "humanely raised" food is opening up new ground in what was previously a no-man's land between carnivores and vegetarians. An increasing number of consumers are acting as "ethical omnivores," saying that they'll only eat meat and dairy products that have been raised in a cruelty-free way. Industrial farms have been stung by high-profile campaigns and such books like "Dominion" where a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush details the economics of factory farming – having personally investigated several major animal industries, including those of hunting and whaling.  He traces the history of the animal rights movement and its philosophical underpinnings and argues for a balance between the cruel and cavalier treatment of animals and the more radical notions of the animal rights movement. This abuse cannot continue in the farms, slaughterhouses, industries and the horrors at the hatcheries. 

Some possible solutions I’ve seen offered up to assist those omnivores in this plight is the (triple R) RRR acronym-Refinement: minimize suffering and distress, Reduction: minimize number of animals used and Replacement: avoid the use of living animals. There are countless other materials and methods to use. Synthetic skin called Corrositex, Computer modeling, Improved Statistical Design and The Murine Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA); all are available and contribute to decrease the dependence on animal testing. Better standards and regulations are essential and perpetrators not in compliance of the decrees, persecuted. The answer is in awareness and support of bills that protect and regulate and sentence the criminality. It’s understandable that it is a difficult issue to talk and think about, however I hope more people become aware of what goes on so we can offer alternatives, law creation and stricter regulations. I am a firm believer in allowing people to live any lifestyle they choose. That’s the beauty of America…there are all the colors of our, hopefully more aware and compassionate, rainbow.