Bring Joel Back!

Posted by: Jimbo Duggins | November 30, 2007 12:48 PM

you forgot to mention how much fun you had shaving your chest.

Posted by: Joel | November 30, 2007 12:50 PM

First off, Welcome back Jack!! Those are Awesome pics, better then I expected! You look so Happy in the mirror, lol! Who's in the Canadian paint? Anyway Joel was "Great"! Even though it was just for the day, he did a FANTASTIC job!!

Posted by: Carla | November 30, 2007 01:12 PM

Welcome back Jack!

Yes, Joel was great.

You shaved your chest????

LOL!

Posted by: Jaclyn | November 30, 2007 03:38 PM

This is a wonderful action - thanks to all the participants!

Concerning 'Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act' i would like to focus on the importance of this issue because there is still a big majority of meat eaters in this world and we cannot hope to turn them all into vegetarians within the next time! So we have to do everything possible at least to reduce the animal suffering in the slaughterhouses! these places should be surveyed by qualified people and the slaughtermethods have to be improved, specially concerning kosher and hallal slaughtering as it's happening here in france where Brigitte Bardot met the chief imam of Paris mosque who agrees with her hundred percent to stunn animals before cutting their throat! but he is an intellectually educated personality and there are still enough primitive folks around who kill these poor animals in their own cruel barbaric way!

So here i put all my hopes on PETA and the Humane Society etc. to find at least some humane 'solutions' which could at least 'reduce' some of this horrific pain through which these martyrs have to go!!!

Posted by: claudia marrapodi | November 30, 2007 03:41 PM

claudia, I absolutely agree, it is very important to ensure the most humane methods of slaughter are utilised. This will undoubtably involve changes to long held traditions/religious beliefs.

Posted by: rojo | November 30, 2007 05:46 PM

thank ewe all for your inspiring creative uprisings! i wish i'd been there too. I'm in spearfish south dakota, home of BHSU, black hills state university. we could use some peta activists and theorists here. we also have a wildlife "sanctuary" that needs help expanding it's cages: spirit of the hills wildlife sanctuary, or wildlifesanctuary.net. I'm working on some holliday bumper sticker for them based on their flyer's theme "striving to respect all life" " striving to respect the diversity that is all life" i can't quite get the quote. Anyhoot, my bumper stickers say " i'd rather be striving" "strive not to drive" " Jesus stived" etc. Any help ewe can send our way is great. Hope to seem some naked bodies here soon. Find me, Maxine Ocean c/o ST. Joseph's Church and Newman Center or @ Behaviour Management Services, where I preach eco-psychology...

Posted by: ocean | November 30, 2007 05:47 PM

Just so everyone knows...I tried to get a Super Man action shot of him last night...didnt work to well.

Posted by: Sarah | November 30, 2007 05:50 PM

That's great you raised this philosophical question, Jack. (What do you think?)

..........

The animal rights movement attracts people from various backgrounds and disciplines--much like rights movements in our recent past--and all the contributions these people have made, and will make, to the movement are invaluable in advancing animal rights. Whether one is direct action activist, a supporter of PETA and their methods, AND/OR engages in a more "intellectual" approach--all these AR advocates have a role to play in the struggle for animal liberation.

Thus, criticism and ridicule of others within the movement whose tactics or methodology one may disagree with should either be eliminated or only dredged up when necessary (if they're felt to be detrimental to the movement, for example). Such discord can only undermine the strength of a movement that is already facing a daunting uphill battle.

If the 21st century is going to be the century of animal liberation, people of these various backgrounds and beliefs need to become involved according to their strengths--and learn to interact with each other in the most efficacious manner. The "ivory tower" scholar has as vital a role to play in animal liberation as does any half-naked activist holding up a sign--the audience is different, the setting is different, but hopefully the result is the same--influencing hearts and minds, and changing the attitudes and behaviors, concerning the brutal exploitation of non-human animals.

It's still all about the animals, right?

Posted by: Doug | November 30, 2007 07:27 PM

i agree

Posted by: george zimmer | November 30, 2007 11:53 PM

Doug - VERY well said!

Posted by: Michele | December 1, 2007 12:16 PM

wow you people take animal right to a new level you place them on a pedestal that is equal with humans

Posted by: dylan | December 1, 2007 04:58 PM

Re the last anti-PETA comment: "wow you people take animal right to a new level you place them on a pedestal that is equal with humans" made me want to put instant coffee in a microwave to see if I'd go back in time! It is truly a genuine gem! I'd have to give it a high score for humorous content! I had so much fun trying to analyze it -- wait, a pedestal means higher but he's saying we're elevating animals but to the same level although it's one of superiority? It's like a brain teazer. No matter which way you turn it, the logic just never turns the wheels that connect the dots.

You Go PETA. Some people will just never "get" the concept of animal equality but there's enough of us who do or certainly will in the future and we're growing every day, thanks to you.

Posted by: Andi | December 1, 2007 09:59 PM

Hi, Doug,
Yes, very well said indeed!
I've commented a few times on here to those effects, that it is my policy not to knock other strong, REAL a/r/a's approaches (comments) - because all have a right to express themselves as they feel, no matter what kind of so-called "unacceptable" wording or examples they use. I believe they are being very HONEST because passions and convictions run very deeply. And yes, it is not good for the movement when "lukewarm" activists don't agree with other's methods because then it dilutes unity. As you mentioned, there are "different audiences" and "the settings are different," so each type of involvement has a wide variety to offer and appeal in order to obtain positive results, with the focus being on what is most beneficial for the animals.

To dylan,
Animal rights' beliefs -supported by verified facts -goes deeper, wider, and more open-minded than I think you realize. I definitely can't explain all of it in one blog because there is so much to know, practically endless. So just VERY, VERY briefly:
Animal Rights' respects ALL life, and therefore we are saying that ALL life -animal and human animal- has a right to be treated with dignity, free from enslavement, torture, abuse, and killing...because ALL life has an interactive impact. Meaning, there are affects and effects that determines good or bad outcomes -as in a ripple effect -throughout society and our environment.
Mahatma Ghandi was one of the greats who said it best:
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."

Posted by: Ariel | December 2, 2007 08:24 AM

you people are freaks!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | December 2, 2007 11:19 PM

So, do we call you Union Jack now?

Posted by: KathyF | December 3, 2007 09:11 AM

To anonymous from December 2, 2007 11:19 PM, thank you - "freak" can be defined as "An eccentric or nonconformist person, especially a member of a counterculture; an enthusiast". Well, we animal rights people are quite likely nonconformist, and we certainly are enthusiasts for animal rights!

To KathyF - that was brilliant!!

Posted by: Michele | December 3, 2007 03:59 PM

Bring Joel back. I love SMILES!

Posted by: Abi | December 3, 2007 05:53 PM

of course what else would i expect from PETA members hey lets go out and be idiots and stand naked in public here is a great idea why dont you all do something constructive with your time and money.

Posted by: claude | December 4, 2007 07:10 AM

hey claude: why don't you do something constructive with your time and money instead of playing your foul-mouthed wicked song here!

Posted by: claudia | December 4, 2007 10:40 AM

Jack,
Your disguise has done nothing for me, but the absolutely sick onions on the Canadian and American birds have inspired me to never ever wear a hat made of dead bear. Cheers.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | December 4, 2007 12:18 PM

Claude,
I am typically not a big cheerleader for these guys, but you have to admire anyone who gets to hang out with four or five topless girls and get paid for it....that's constructive!!! I may have chosen the wrong profession.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | December 4, 2007 04:53 PM

i hunt every animal out there and peta members dont know what there talking bout the best meat i have had is elk and i garuntee that every peta member has wor fur before or ate some kinda meat its in our culture and has been for hundrads of years and those animals are still here wats the big deal!! if some one knows please be glad to freakin tell me!!!!

Posted by: Tater | December 4, 2007 10:16 PM

Hey, Tater!! We all "GREW UP"!!

Posted by: Carla | December 5, 2007 10:45 AM

Tater, please tell us how you have such awesome powers that you can "garuntee" that every PETA member has worn fur or eaten meat before. I personally have never worn so much as a scrap of fur in my entire life, so there goes your theory! Yes, many of us used to eat meat, but that was before we became enlightened to the plight of the animals.

Tater, the "big deal" is that billions of animals are tortured and killed every year for human consumption, entertainment, so-called medical advances (what crap that is!) and clothing. The big deal is that one species (ie: humans) does not get to decide the worth of all other species - that is called "speciesism" - which is a "prejudice based on morally irrelevant physical differences". It is morally wrong to regard sentient beings as objects or property. Humans just do not have the right to decide that non-human animals have less value because they supposedly do not have rational thought - yet infants and mentally disabled people are still considered valuable because they happen to belong to the human species.

Tater, if you want someone to "freakin" tell you more, check out PETA's videos. We are not going to explain it all to you here - make some "freakin" efforts of your own to become educated about it and don't waste our time anymore if you are not truly wanting to become enlightened.

Posted by: Michele | December 5, 2007 11:17 AM

tater, I don't know where you're from but in most countries certain species are protected by law. For a reason- not all animals have survived the hundreds of years of civilisation, think Dodo, Javan Tiger, Thylacine. And Passenger Pigeon(one I recently read about).
I trust you are being flippant when you say you "hunt every animal out there", not all have robust populations. And some probably don't taste very good.

Posted by: rojo | December 5, 2007 11:20 AM

Tater

I never wore fur and have always loved animals. I was forced to eat animals by my mother but once I got to a private high school I attended I decided I would not eat them anymore. Sure, my mom was unhappy about my decision but I was adamant and the arguments continued between us but my ethical views meant more to me. At university I became even more active in the animal rights movement and still am. Sure, there are still animals around but certainly a lot less due to humans and certainly hunting. The Florida panther is a good example of what cowardly hunters do best...kill beautiful creatures because their idiots!!!

Posted by: Ana | December 5, 2007 11:28 AM

tater: look look whom we got here - i make a bet it's our well-known notorious ugly 'huntur' - i think i'm right!!!!

Posted by: animalfriend | December 5, 2007 11:32 AM

Tater,

Everyone is entitled to an opinion and has the right to express said opinion, but when you use poor grammar and spelling you are hunting with dull broad heads. Do yourself and your message a favor and try to express your message more effectively. Your web browser should have a spell checker on it. When you write such as you have, you fall right into the anti-hunters cross hairs as an easy target. All the best.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | December 5, 2007 06:26 PM

The demise of the Florida subspecies of Felis concolor in the 21st century has little or nothing to do with hunting. Habitat loss is the key to most or all declining populations of wildlife in the United States. In fact, hunters and other outdoor orginizations do a lot to restore and preserve the cat's dwindling habitat. If hunters scared (cowards, though?) it is a fear that the urban cancer will continue to encroach upon natural places. Where on Earth does the term "cowardly hunter" come from anyway? That's not that silly "defenseless" animal argument again, is it?

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | December 6, 2007 10:49 AM

Christopher,

I think a good parameter for determining who is defenseless is to compare the stats of how many animals have been taken out by hunters versus how many hunters have been taken out by animals.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | December 6, 2007 09:25 PM

Mike,
Animals have numerous extremely effective defenses versus hunting, they are, however not impervious, obviously. Cows, sheep, goats, are largely defensless against hunting as these defenses have largely been bred out. I give wild animals a lot of credit because most of the time, the defenses are quite effective.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | December 7, 2007 10:35 AM

Christopher,

Yeah a squirrel runs up a tree and sits there thinking he's safe? How many millions were blasted out of trees last year?

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | December 7, 2007 02:55 PM

Mike,
You must be describing the semi tame squirells that live in your local city park. Usually for a hunter to be successful, he must see the squirell before it sees him; not an easy task. In this case, the defense is: get the heck out of Dodge, and it is often effective.

All the best.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | December 10, 2007 12:31 PM

Ahhh, opinions.

Posted by: Caboose | December 10, 2007 04:36 PM

Bears are excellent eating, and a helluva dangerous carnivore to have around the neighborhood.

Cruelty, no, but controls, yes - including culls, hunting, and consumption.

No animal will ever go to hell - nor is an animal on the same plane with a human to balance space for living.

Posted by: Jeff White | December 20, 2007 07:35 AM