"Over 8000 animals saved on the front lines from puppy mills, hoarders, disasters, and other cruelty cases."

Yeah, they do lot's of good, but 8000 (in a year?!?) hardly compares to the 3-4 million cats and dogs HSUS claims are killed in shelters every year. This just seems like so much damage control after some recent, widely-reported negative publicity. Yes, some could see the incident as indicative of the need for more funding/donations, but I think most people, like myself, saw it as callous and completely unnecessary. Any desire I may have to give to HSUS is tempered by knowing they employ such people, although, to be fair, employees are often hamstrung by intractable policy (as HSUS claims was the case in this incident). Still, shit like that just pisses me off.

>> ^BoneRemake:

how fucking hard is it to keep a cat a couple days ? four dollars worth of food and 1x2 cage ??


3 days, little more than "24 hour observation" by people who would have been there anyway, $6,000

>> ^deathcow:

I just think they have a target in mind. For example they probably wont go into pentathol and then demonstrate it by euthanizing an animal.


they don't need to but i'm pretty sure if they covered it they would not shy away from saying "its used to euthanise animals" - not alued to that as its main usage but then skip around saying specifically what its used for by only describing what it does on a cellular level. also for example why bring up Viagra if all you are going to talk about is the raw chemical and how it dilates blood vessels when Viagra is marketed primary as a erectile disfuntion drug?

the word penis/erection or discusoin on the scientific raw facts of sex should not have a age restriction on them. the problem hear is simply that they alluded to something rather than just saying it which is out of character for the videos where they have no problem specifcly saying the use for other chemicals or what they do to things on a practical level.

No one thinks thay should have gone into full graphical detail on how penises and sex work ( although that is lagimitely as interesting as any other thing) its just a case of being mature and not continuing useless cultural hangovers.

I just think they have a target in mind. For example they probably wont go into pentathol and then demonstrate it by euthanizing an animal.

>> ^NetRunner:

I say getting a solid economic recovery is job #1. A huge portion of the deficit right now is due to the recession itself -- it lowers our GDP (and therefore the tax revenues), and it means a lot more people going on government assistance because they're unemployed and can't find a job.

Once you compensate for deficit spending, nominal GDP declined approximately 10% per year over the last 3 years, and oscillated around 0% for the 7 years before that. This has been masked by borrowing trillions of USD, which is the only way the government can stimulate anything. I believe the US does not have the production capacity you expect it to have, which would be required to produce a true economic recovery and not have GDP merely return to pre-2000 levels.

>> ^NetRunner:

It's also just one step shy from suggesting that we euthanize our elderly, process them into soylent green, and sell it to pay down our debt.

I completely agree, and so does Karl in his latest video. The recovery process is going to be very painful, because Congress will most likely not enact a decent healthcare solution or a widespread reform to the tax code, and will defend special interests and military spending at all costs.

I'm from Brazil (but I've been around, and I've worked in the U.S.).

>> ^bmacs27:

Also, if our balance sheet is so bad, why aren't the bond markets punishing us?


Because quantitative easing pushes down the yield on short-term bonds. On the other hand, it increases the yield on long-term bonds (since QE is essentially printing money, it raises the expectation of inflation in the long term).

>> ^flavioribeiro:

As for the top priority of the US Congress, I believe it should be balancing the budget. The national debt is the most pressing issue because especially over the last 4 years, US GDP growth has been fueled with borrowed money.

I say getting a solid economic recovery is job #1. A huge portion of the deficit right now is due to the recession itself -- it lowers our GDP (and therefore the tax revenues), and it means a lot more people going on government assistance because they're unemployed and can't find a job.

>> ^flavioribeiro:
Rolling over this debt will already cause a significant drop in the American standard of living, especially as inflation and interest rates start to rise.

"Rolling over" this debt? Why will it result in any drop in the standard in living? It seems to me that leaving the unemployment picture untouched is going to have a massively larger impact on our long-term prosperity than having a higher short- and medium-term national debt.

>> ^flavioribeiro:
To make things short, I refer you to Karl Denninger's blog (who I agree with). He posted short video about this today. To answer your question more precisely, the US Congress must 1) revise the tax code and 2) enact significant cuts to government programs. (1) is nearly impossible to pass because it effectively taxes everyone the same. We will at best see a weak version of (2), which will be insufficient and more painful in the long run.


I'll have to watch the video later, but the blog post probably gives me a clear enough picture. You know this guy is a founder of one of our dreaded Tea Party groups here, right?

In any case, I'll just respond to what I think he's got a valid point about.

First, he's right that medical care costs are essentially the entire problem with the long range debt picture. We've got to find a way to get health care cost inflation under control here. Other countries have done so with lots of government interventionism. We're still refusing to do that sort of thing, and the longer we put it off, the worse our deficits will get.

Second, while I think the "Fair" tax is a giant scam, I'm not opposed to the basic idea of replacing income taxes with consumption taxes.

Third, I like the idea of cutting back on the number of incentives baked into the tax code. But I don't oppose the very idea of them on principle, I just think we have a bunch that aren't doing any good for anyone, and a bunch that are actively doing harm (like oil & gas subsidies).

However, the vast majority of it is just lies and dogmatic ideology being presented as some sort of solution to a mundane budget issue. It's exactly what I was referring to when I said this:>> ^NetRunner:

The issue here [is] the millions of people who think the biggest problems in our country are that taxes are too high on businesses, government aid to the poor is too generous, and worker safety regulation is a tyrannical imposition on liberty.


It's also just one step shy from suggesting that we euthanize our elderly, process them into soylent green, and sell it to pay down our debt.

Out of sheer curiosity, what country are you from?

http://ingridandneil.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/outdoor-adventures-whistler-bcs-own-dog-concentration-camp/


The workers compensation claim is here: http://ingridandneil.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/wcbdogcase2010.pdf


If you look at the OAW press releases it is pretty funny. They go from:

OAW has had a financial interest in Howling Dogs for 4 years the operational control of the company remained with the employee

Not long after the events of late April, the employee in question ceased managing the business. This employee continues to get our support as he heals from his injuries and illness. Because of the information in the WCB ruling pertaining to his emotional condition we don't feel it is appropriate to release further information about this individual.

To throwing the guy under the bus.

Outdoor Adventures at Whistler Ltd. and former General Manager, Howling Dog Tours Whistler Inc. agree to the following:
1. The number of dogs euthanized by Mr. Fawcett. Mr. Fawcett advised Mr. Houssian in mid-April 2010 that he was estimating 50 dogs would be euthanized.
2. The condition of the dogs euthanized by Mr. Fawcett. In mid April, 2010 Mr. Fawcett advised Mr. Houssian that the dogs to be euthanized were "too old" or "sick" and "not adoptable". These dogs live to "run" and were not able to do so and would have had to be kept in cages with the result that they would have had very poor or virtually no quality of life.
3. The efforts made to arrange for dogs to be adopted. Considerable efforts were made to arrange for dogs to be adopted, both before and after mid April, 2010. The efforts at adoption were not as successful as hoped.
4. The instructions given to Mr. Fawcett concerning the manner of euthanizing the dogs. There were no instructions given to Mr. Fawcett as to the manner of euthanizing dogs on this occasion, and Mr. Fawcett was known to have very humanely euthanized dogs on previous occasions.

The animal was put down, euthanized by order of its owners, after the incident which occurred in Georgia.

So you may breathe easier, I do not endorse the murder of this woman, but recognize her sociopathy will exist as long as she does. Most of the peeps furious at the idiot would not kill her, even if the State gave us permission to pull the trigger, but do not doubt their rage is real.

Humans are barely rational. To some people, cats and dogs are their "children". If the pet owners had caught the idiot in the act and beaten the crap out of her, I would be hard-pressed to convict what could be considered a "crime of passion". If they actually killed her...I dunno.

As for providing a 'conservative counterpoint' to the sift, I say what needs to be said with no concern for the outcome. People don't comment on the internet to challenge their own ideas, even if it happens from time to time.

>> ^mentality:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Every day we are subjected to story after story of vile scum getting away with all manner of crimes. Too often it's actually worse for society when they are captured alive and carted off to be treated like kings, defended by an army of parasitic lawyers as a reward for breaking in to someone's house or business or physically assaulting the elderly or children, and that's just local news, ignoring the usual cadre of dick-tators/Illuminati or whomever stands in for "the forces of evil" on a global scale.
There is no moral confusion about this vid. This a crime people understand on a fundamental level, a cruel act towards a defenseless animal. There are billions of instances like this, most perhaps far worse. The cat represents ALL those abused animals and unfortunately for this idiot, she now represents ALL those human vermin that abuse animals and get away with it, except she got caught.
As for my own words:
Let us consider that we are all partially insane. It will explain us to each other; it will unriddle many riddles; it will make clear and simple many things which are involved in haunting and harassing difficulties and obscurities now.
- Mark Twain
A world where a human would get euthanized for putting a cat in a bin would be a special kind of hell. Any act that causes suffering to another being, whether its human or cat (or a cow?, or a rat? Where do you draw the line?) could fit your criteria. And what about emotional trauma? Plenty of suffering and damage is inflicted without ever laying a finger on another. Furthermore, you can't just neat and tidily remove a person from existence. What about all the people who love and depend on that person?
While it's vastly different than the policies of Hitler and Stalin, any practical attempt at applying your ideology would make you a greater tyrant and a greater enemy of freedom than all the Hitler and Stalins of the world combined. Like most of your posts, you're not providing a conservative counter balance to the liberal bias of the Sift. Your ideas are just so ridiculous that it only alienates your position.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Every day we are subjected to story after story of vile scum getting away with all manner of crimes. Too often it's actually worse for society when they are captured alive and carted off to be treated like kings, defended by an army of parasitic lawyers as a reward for breaking in to someone's house or business or physically assaulting the elderly or children, and that's just local news, ignoring the usual cadre of dick-tators/Illuminati or whomever stands in for "the forces of evil" on a global scale.
There is no moral confusion about this vid. This a crime people understand on a fundamental level, a cruel act towards a defenseless animal. There are billions of instances like this, most perhaps far worse. The cat represents ALL those abused animals and unfortunately for this idiot, she now represents ALL those human vermin that abuse animals and get away with it, except she got caught.
As for my own words:
Let us consider that we are all partially insane. It will explain us to each other; it will unriddle many riddles; it will make clear and simple many things which are involved in haunting and harassing difficulties and obscurities now.
- Mark Twain

A world where a human would get euthanized for putting a cat in a bin would be a special kind of hell. Any act that causes suffering to another being, whether its human or cat (or a cow?, or a rat? Where do you draw the line?) could fit your criteria. And what about emotional trauma? Plenty of suffering and damage is inflicted without ever laying a finger on another. Furthermore, you can't just neat and tidily remove a person from existence. What about all the people who love and depend on that person?

While it's vastly different than the policies of Hitler and Stalin, any practical attempt at applying your ideology would make you a greater tyrant and a greater enemy of freedom than all the Hitler and Stalins of the world combined. Like most of your posts, you're not providing a conservative counter balance to the liberal bias of the Sift. Your ideas are just so ridiculous that it only alienates your position.

>> ^jonny:

Some seriously messed up comments here. As though highly educated humans are the only lives worthy of not having their throats slit at birth.
I didn't note any mention in the video of extraordinary measures being taken to save this life, like those often taken in the cases of premature babies. Just the opposite in fact - he just survived. Perhaps the commenters that think his parents should diaf believe the baby would have been better off being drowned at birth? Or dumped in a ditch to die quickly of dehydration/starvation? Maybe we could extend that - any toddler that doesn't walk by 18 months, or any child that doesn't quote shakespeare by 5 years is euthanized.
wtf?


Yeah, how we respond to the video probably depends on our temperament and assumptions.

Some seriously messed up comments here. As though highly educated humans are the only lives worthy of not having their throats slit at birth.

I didn't note any mention in the video of extraordinary measures being taken to save this life, like those often taken in the cases of premature babies. Just the opposite in fact - he just survived. Perhaps the commenters that think his parents should diaf believe the baby would have been better off being drowned at birth? Or dumped in a ditch to die quickly of dehydration/starvation? Maybe we could extend that - any toddler that doesn't walk by 18 months, or any child that doesn't quote shakespeare by 5 years is euthanized.

wtf?

way too much cat love in here, go back to http://icanhascheezburger.com/ please.

/vote euthanize.

Human Meddling in the process of natural selection disgusts me to no end.

Natural selection is a hard thing.

I feel that if an animal cannot live long enough to reproduce, humans included, then it obviously does not pass on it's genes ergo; it does not pass the test of nature.

My opinion of selective breeders is, they disgust me on both a guttural and rational level. These hoity toity rich white people base their whole breeding on outdated and unscientific opinion on how a dog should look

I see a strong working dog as the peek of its breed. I see a show dog as a farce of nature.

Pure breeding is not something to be liked. Biodiversity and Genetic Diversity is something that nature naturally seeks, and it is proven time and again that breeding with a small gene pool with no diversity will ultimately lead to extinction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

I also find the Eugenicist argument about Pure Bred people completely warped.

My knowledge of biology is only as a hobby, and maybe a slight obsession. It was my favorite class in High School, and would probably have been in college had I majored in it.

On a more sentimental note an old German Shepard or Deutscher Schäferhund of mine died of complication that resulted from Hip Displasia. Here is a quote from the wikipedia on German Shepards:

In 1899, Von Stephanitz was attending a dog show when he was shown a dog named Hektor Linksrhein. Hektor was the product of many generations of selective breeding and completely fulfilled what Von Stephanitz believed a working dog should be. He was pleased with the strength of the dog and was so taken by the animal's intelligence and loyalty, that he purchased it immediately.

A genetic disease that is so common in German Shepherds that one could, speculatively argue that it is the cause of selective breeding. After watching the dog degrade into dragging it's own hind legs around for weeks, and then shitting on herself regularly, because she couldn't lift herself up to shit properly, it was time to euthanize the dog. I can't help but wonder what the breed would look like if it had a bit of diversity.

It is wondrous to think what the world would be like if humans had no developed the current human brain, and still only had the reptile brain.

For a unique understanding of evolution and natural selection read some of these:


The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1976. ISBN 0-19-286092-5.
he Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Free Press (United States), Transworld (United Kingdom and Commonwealth). 2009. ISBN 0-593-06173-X.
The Blind Watchmaker. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. 1986. ISBN 0-393-31570-3.


The Blind Watchmaker was the most complicated read in my opinion.

>> ^Crake:
so... euthanize the hoi polloi?
Is it important to "awaken" every person on Earth?
To hasten progress? but progress is being hampered every day by "thinking", rational people.
To find all the possible geniuses out there, so they can contribute to science? but a genius may as well be a product of circumstance as of talent.
why not just leave the fools alone?


We have to spread the good word. "Have you found science?"

Srsly though, I see it more as an affirmation that we should strive to be better, than a put-down on those who don't. It's a shame for people to be stuck and stagnent. Sometimes people need to be reminded that they can be more than they are.