Cuisinarts of the Gods

Okay, I'll admit it, I'm an animal lover.  I want ALL animals, humans, fungi, fish, and even 'most reptiles' to peacefully co-exist wherever possible.

Huh?  Okay, what's so funny? 

Oh, yeah, I get it, my being an 'Animal lover' sounds funny to you, huh?  Yeah, it was hysterical when I was in Third Grade also, but I moo-ved on...  As for you, get your mind out of the barnyard and cut that out - ya'll are SICK.  

Follow along, you might just learn something...  

All I'm saying is that if a cute-little-fuzzy-bunny is crossing the street in front of my car I WILL swerve to avoid striking 'Monsieur Rabbit' if at all possible.  The only caveat here, of course, if there are a group of Nuns and orphans standing on one side of the street, a semi-truck of baby harp seals in front of me, and a group of Golden Retriever & Beagle puppies on the third side of the street, and um, then, sorry ''the bunny gets the bumper''.  

Yeah, you've got to have priorities.

So if you are a bunny reading this post and you watched your brother Peter get run over by a speeding Toyota - that wasn't me.  It was most-likely some White Hispanic who hates 'bunnies minding their own business' in the middle of the night.  



Yeah, probably a White-Hispanic guy with a 'thing' for wabbits...

George 'Elmer' Fudderrman - White Hispanic

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking - one of those White-Hispanics, out walking with a gun, just looking for trouble.

This has very little to do with today's post - but as with most of my posts, they pretty much go where they want.  Yes, I try my best to keep up with them as they wander away from me, but sometimes, just sometimes, they run back upon themselves and they ALMOST make sense.  

This is one of THOSE posts.

Today's unintended congruence has a bit do do with the classic Warner Brother's cartoon featuring Bugs and Daffy starring in "Rabbit Season / Duck Season".  

I'm just hoping that if you're reading this, you're more of a Rabbit than a Duck.  

Being a Duck is so dang dangerous these days...

From the Daily Caller Online:  Study: Feds underestimated how many birds get killed by wind turbines


A new study found that the federal government underestimated the number of birds that die colliding with wind turbines across the country.


In fact, bird deaths were found to be 30 percent higher than previous estimates given by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2009.


“I estimated 888,000 bat and 573,000 bird fatalities/year (including 83,000 raptor fatalities) at 51,630 megawatt (MW) of installed wind-energy capacity in the United States in 2012,” writes K. Shawn Smallwood, author of the study that was published in the Wildlife Society Bulletin.


'''

Last month, environmentalists and bird enthusiasts watched in horror as the rare White-throated Needletail flew into a wind turbine and died on the Outer Hebrides.


“This wasn’t even a turbine on a huge wind farm, it was a solitary turbine to provide power to a small community,” said a 38-year old who witnessed the bird hit the turbine. “There is huge concern in Scotland about plans for big wind farms and the danger they would pose to big birds of prey like golden eagles and sea eagles.”


In the U.S., nearly all the birds killed are protected by federal law, but the Obama administration has so far refused to prosecute renewable energy companies whose turbines kill birds.


“Despite numerous violations, the Obama administration — like the Bush administration before it — has unofficially exempted the wind industry from prosecution under the Eagle Protection and Migratory Bird Treaty Acts,” wrote the Manhattan Institute’s Robert Bryce. “By exempting the wind industry from prosecution under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or the Eagle Protection Act, the federal government is providing another indirect subsidy to the sector.”

...

However, the Obama administration has prosecuted fossil fuel companies that kill far fewer birds than their wind-powered counterparts.


In 2009, ExxonMobil pleaded guilty in federal court to charges of killing 85 federally protected birds and agreed to pay $600,000 in fines and fees. That same year, Oregon-based PacifiCorp was also fined $1.4 million for the killing of 232 eagles in Wyoming, which were electrocuted by the company’s power lines.


“What it boils down to is this: If you electrocute an eagle, that is bad, but if you chop it to pieces, that is OK,” said Tim Eicher, a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agent who helped prosecute the PacifiCorp.
 


Let me get this straight, protected avian wildlife killed and chopped into bits by large, spinning blades generating 'green' electricity is cool, but if the electricity goes out over an insulated wire from a coal, or water-powered plant, and a bird is killed...  Prosecution (of the electrocution death) is actionable under Federal Law?

Oh, yes, now that DOES make sense.  Because, um, if you kill something while acting with the 'best of intentions', you're exempt from prosecution!  Everyone knows this!!! 

Given this new (and selective) interpretation of the Law, one wonders what caused the fuss from Eric Holder regarding that White-Hispanic guy in the first place?  After all, he 'meant well', and given the guidelines adopted by the Obama Administration (regarding green-minced-bird-bits), that's what matters, isn't it?

Yes, nearly 1.5 Million estimated birds were killed in 2012 - but they were killed by Earth-Friendly people with the 'best of possible intentions'...

And this, makes it all...  Okay.

"Duck Season!"

BOOM!

Don't worry Daffy, Rabbit Season's just around the corner...    
 

Oh, sorry Bugs, with Holder and Obama running things, we're all living in a Looney Tunes cartoon now.  I just can't wait for the day when Porky pops his head out of the White House and yells...

What, Exactly, Does 'PETA' Stand For?

"W.T.M.?"  (What the... Moo?)

What does 'PETA' stand for?

Inquiring cows want to know...

At the superficial, 'Acronym-based,' level of conversation, 'PETA' stands for (according to their website):

"People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals"

All animals?

No.  Please do not infer something PETA never implied... 

Ethical treatment is NOT 100% universal in regard to the animals which PETA 'treats' ethically.

Please notice that the fuzzy little bunny is running AWAY from PETA

PETA, according to their 'About PETA' tab, has a mission - oh, look, here it is now:

Our Mission Statement
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is the largest animal rights organization in the world, with more than 3 million members and supporters.
 
PETA focuses its attention on the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time:

- on factory farms,
- in the clothing trade,
- in laboratories, and,
- in the entertainment industry

We also work on a variety of other issues, including the cruel killing of beavers, birds, and other "pests" as well as cruelty to domesticated animals.

PETA works through public education, cruelty investigations, research, animal rescue, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement, and protest campaigns.

So, according to their website: 

"PETA focuses its attention on the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time..."


This makes a lot of sense - especially when contrasted to the animals who do NOT suffer for the long periods of time.  (Keep reading, we'll get there) 

Specifically, those animals which PETA is tasked with caring for at PETA's very own shelter (for 48 hours, or less).  

No, PETA doesn't shed so much as a tear for them... 

These animals have never been in the PETA Shelter.
How do we know this?  They are still alive...

The Daily Caller Online reports:  Documents published online this month show that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, an organization known for its uncompromising animal-rights positions, killed more than 95 percent of the pets in its care in 2011. 

The documents, obtained from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, were published online by the Center for Consumer Freedom, a non-profit organization that runs online campaigns targeting groups that antagonize food producers.
 
Fifteen years’ worth of similar records show that since 1998 PETA has killed more than 27,000 animals at its headquarters in Norfolk, VA.

In a February 16 statement, the Center said PETA killed 1,911 cats and dogs last year, finding homes for only 24 pets. 
“PETA hasn’t slowed down its slaughterhouse operation,” said Rick Berman, CCF’s executive director. “It appears PETA is more concerned with funding its media and advertising antics than finding suitable homes for these dogs and cats.”

In a statement, Berman added that PETA has a $37 million dollar annual budget.

...

“The facility does not contain sufficient animal enclosures to routinely house the number of animals annually reported as taken into custody,” Kovich concluded in his report. 
.
Kovich also determined that PETA employees kill 84 percent of the animals in their custody within 24 hours of receiving them. 

“[PETA’s] primary purpose,” Kovich wrote, “is not to find permanent adoptive homes for animals.”
 
PETA media liaison Jane Dollinger told The Daily Caller in an email that “most of the animals we take in are society’s rejects; aggressive, on death’s door, or somehow unadoptable.”
 
Dollinger did not dispute her organization’s sky-high euthanasia rate, but insisted PETA only kills dogs and cats because of “injury, illness, age, aggression, or because no good homes exist for them.”
 
PETA’s own history, however, shows that this has not always been the case.
 
In 2005, two PETA employees described as “adorable” and “perfect” some of the dogs and cats they killed in the back of a PETA-owned van. The two were arrested after police witnessed them tossing the animals’ dead bodies into a North Carolina dumpster. 
.

PETA had no comment when the Daily Caller asked what sort of effort it routinely makes to find adoptive homes for animals in its care.


With a 95% 'kill rate percentage' for 2011, you'd think Margaret Sanger ran this joint.  However, at last report, Margaret Sanger 'continues' to be dead, although her 'death's work' is being aptly carried out day after day by caring, federally-and-privately-funded staffers of Planned Parenthood (your contributions, as always are 'Most Happily Accepted!'). 

There is NO truth to the rumor that PETA and PP are looking to merge their operations to obtain a better 'Economy of Scale' when it comes to the purchase of dumpsters, syringes, gloves, aprons, and / or ball peen hammers, however.

I guess the bottom line is if you think your contributions are going to PETA to 'SAVE ANIMALS', you might want to inquire as to what your particular donations are actually being used for.  More likely than not, they are being used to recruit other unsuspecting contributors to the organization, pay "G & A" expenses of staff, and to fund travel expenses associated with the myriad of 'Boycotts & Protests' across the country, each supported (with a little help from their 3 MILLION members) by PETA.  

To justify PETA's euthanasia-prone tendencies, they have issued a formal response, and purchased Paid (SEM) search results from Google.  Oh, yes, your Tax-Exempt contributions to PETA are also going to Google, Yahoo, Bing, et al...  Sorry, I missed these 'online defense expense bucket expenditures' in the last paragraph.

You can read PETA's response to the above charges HERE, but I wouldn't recommend viewing it if you have an aversion to of 'half-dead' animal photos used to justify PETA's particularly high 'kill rate'. 

Apparently, 95% of the animals 'sheltered' in 2011 had facial cancers, infected limbs, and other visually-unattractive diseases as illustrated at via the link above.  Yes, of the 100% of the animals they 'sheltered', a phenomenal 95% of the animals looked like the photos they're using to explain their Guest Mortality Rate at the 'PETA Shelter' to their contributors, media, and the curious, in general.

The only humane choice was to kill 95% of the animals placed in their care.

Bastards.

p.s.:  As a rule of thumb, when you are taking an animal to a 'Shelter', it is preferable that its survival rate 'in the shelter' be a 'bit' higher than the same animal's survival rate when left alone to fend for itself while surrounded by rabid wolves.

But then again, you may disagree.