I just got off the phone this morning, after a half-hour talk, with the worst right-wing conservative Republican selfish pseudo-Libertarian anti-animal dentist in the world. To keep this short, I tried to find little bits and pieces of good in him, but it was not worth the effort. This guy cared only about HIS OWN freedoms. He pretended to be libertarian -- "let gays marry if they want to" -- but only if it were in his own state or town or neighborhood or whatever arbitary boundary he could invent -- "I believe in State's rights. if Massachusetts wants to allow gays to marry, then let them. If New Jersey wants to ban it, then do so." What the FUCK is special about a state? Answer: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!! He's so concerned about states' rights -- what about ANIMALS' rights? He gave the usual "animals have no rights, animals feel no pain." I think I got him to think a TINY bit, when I said that the terrorist Muslims flying planes into buildings think about Americans the same way HE thinks about animals. He said, "yeah, your're right". He argued IN FAVOR of the police to search and frisk whichever drivers they want for ANY REASON AT ALL, but against speed limits, but in favor of "common sense" laws. WHO THE FUCK DOES HE THINK MAKES THE LAWS? Answer: anyone who fights for it! WHO THE FUCK DOES HE THINK IS SUPPOSED TO DETERMINE "common sense"?! Answer: a utilitarian (if necessary, mathematical) argument or analysis determines that! All his answers (and many of those on this forum, unfortunately) can be reduced to this: he defends only PRE-EXISTING laws, because 1) he is a coward and did not have to fight to create them 2) he can claim HE is not the Nazi (this fuck-shit bastard had the nerve to call ME 'intolerant' many times -- oddly, he admitted to being slightly intolerant himself) because he can claim THE STATE or the POLICE are taking away my right, not him 3) Whereas, in contrast, animal rights lobbyists have to CREATE laws which do not exist yet, so he can always claim WE (not the police or state yet) are taking away his rights. I should buy a gun and blow everybody's brains out until they get this into their fucking brains. Let THEM die for their cause: the right to be stupid and ignorant. So, the answer for going to war for animals is simple: if HE wants to kill and torture animals (he said he fishes) let HIM suffer and die and get maimed and work for this precious little right. THAT is the answer. THAT is the answer a true Libertarian for Animal Rights would give: let the OTHER side be killed and imprisoned (OUTLAW MEAT!) for THEIR cause. At least he agreed with me that the good of euthanasia of severely deformed babies outweighs the bad. He even threw in old people! It was very difficult calculating the good vs. the bad when this dentist was talking very loud and fast at me. So, naturally, there were some thinks I forgot to say, namely, the Libertarian idea of fighting/working for whatever little cause one desires: whether to eat meat or wear fur, etc. I guarantee: in 2 minutes, you won't even remember me, or that I said all this, or even care. Also, ***I*** brought up the main principle of Libertarianism to this pseudo-libertarian: the NON-INITIATION OF FORCE PRINCIPLE (and not just in the context of animals). But THAT WENT RIGHT BY HIM! So, THAT is why I had to say everything above. My favorite all-vegetarian local Chinese restaurant, which had existed since 1998 (I knew about them only since August 2003) has now started serving real meat dishes. That was the final straw which persuaded me to ask for a dentist who is a vegetarian for the animals, not a health-vegetarian, because given the choice between an vegetarian and a non-vegetarian dentist, I want my money going to the vegetarian dentist. The anti-animal forces will invade like a cancer or infestation into every aspect of vegetarians' lives unless THEY are pushed back and forced into a hole and buried. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your website said "send you email", so here it goes.... You really know absolutely nothing about vegetarianism or environmentalism or the complex individual beliefs of those who have their own beliefs on these issues. Instead you are a fanatic who just lumps random sound bites plucked from the sidelines of various conflicts and then making assinine generalizations about what every member -- correct, every SOLDIER -- of those conflicts believes. Have you ever had to fight for the freedom of your country? Obviously not. You should get a real job some time and get a REAL degree. Animal rights soldiers, pro-euthanasia soldiers, pro-socialist soldiers, pro-environmental soldiers all have distinct goals and deal with different issues. I will not even get into the great benefits and minor drawbacks of each of these with you, since you do not have the brains to understand them. You are just an unpatriotic anti-American self-hating coward. You owe pro-animal rights people your life and your freedom so YOU don't have to grow up in a country which murders and tortures BILLIONS of animals every years needlessly for food and experimentation and entertainment. They sacrifice THEIR time, THEIR energy, THEIR freedom, THEIR lives for YOU, you ungrateful extremist. You believe it is more important for you to have tasty chicken for dinner than for them NOT to be debeaked, scalded to death in water, and then have their throats slit. Your trivial little urges outrank ALL the rights of animals -- THAT is the definition of an EXTREMIST and a NAZI. And just so it's clear -- I am no pacifist. I am pro-war, as long as it is for a good cause. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States needs to declare war on the meat industry the same way Bush declared war on Iraq or the way the anti-drug terrorists declared war on drugs! No other industry tortures and murders so many animals -- BILLIONS of them -- each year for no good reason. All the anti-animal and pro-meat fanatics need to be locked up. Their warped agenda is destroying our nation and is a threat to our national security. The meat industry has such a stranglehold on parts of our government (like the USDA) that our military forces are necessary to remove their vice-like grip. You can do YOUR part by not having ANYthing to do with meat-eaters. Gas station owners should not serve them gasoline for their cars. Nurses and doctors should deny them medical service. And forget about the sissy health-vegetarians. All their pro-health agenda does is make the meat industry more clever about looking for ways of genetically modifying and torturing animals even more to squeeze the last ounce of fat from one's pork chop or turkey leg or whatever. There is nothing wrong with genetic engineering. It is a great technological advance, as long as it is done on plants only. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Good -- then I am glad America has taken him. Dr. Peter Singer is an INTERNATIONAL hero. I came to the same philosophy as Dr. Singer's on my own. What the anti-euthanasia terrorists NEVER take into consideration is the BENEFIT of euthanizing severely deformed babies: preventing them from a lifetime of misery for themselves as well as FORCED ENSLAVEMENT of OTHERS to take care of them. That benefit to EVERYONE far outweighs the brief amount of pain the baby might feel being stuck by the euthanasia needle. Sorry -- all the Christians and god-lovers are dangerous and insane for REFUSING to take THIS part of the equation into effect. Furthermore, all Christians and anti-euthanasia terrorists are unpatriotic anti-American cowards for REFUSING to stand up for what is right and making the tough decisions like Dr. Peter Singer proposes. Hypocritically, these same god-lovers gush over and defend police and military people when THEY kill or murder innocent people, even when they could have made choices to kill fewer, and support them for "making the tough choices". In contrast, the following choice exists between eating meat versus eating some vegetarian source of protein: 1) a lifetime of excruciating confinement and torture for the animals and a momentary luxury from the pleasure of eating meat for you 2) freedom from terror and murder for the animal versus a minor inconvenience for you. 2 is CLEARLY the better choice. It is the choice predicted by game theory. It is the choice predicted by Dr. Singer's theory of utilitarian preference. And THIS is what "animal rights" MEANS. The right to equal consideration in a utilitarian argument. Period. Unfortunately, it is clear that going to war against those who actively fight to make the WORSE of these choices in both the euthanasia case and the vegetarian case is the ONLY way to educate and make all the meat-eating anti-American un-patriotic cowards in this world get these ideas into their insignificant brains. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Congressman Malone & Senator Bark, It is time to put an end to factory farming and the raising and killing of animals for food in New Jersey as well as the importation of dead animals. Only animals lower than mammal on the evolutionary scale should be raised for food and only to feed our overpopulation of stray cats and dogs until we put an end to that, too. Please introduce legislation to make it happen. Human meat-eaters hate America. They are cowards who should be locked up in a cage for the longest lifespan of factory farmed animals. To be truly patriotic, you need to introduce legislation enacting a Department of Animal Rights in the State of New Jersey. And assign people from members of such dedicated organizations like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and Bioethicist Dr. Peter Singer from Princeton University to work there, as well as mathematicians who specialize in game theory. I look forward to hearing these ideas. Sincerely, John Nahay, Green Party Dr. John Nahay ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Acting Superintendent Michael Murray Cape Cod National Seashore 99 Marconi Site Road Wellfleet, MA 02667 Dear Superintendent Murray, When will you outlaw hunting on America's seashores? Animal rights soldiers should have far MORE right to SAVE American animals on American public lands than the un-patriotic cowardly America-hating hunters have for killing animals. Please see to it that leisure and pleasure hunters be locked up in prison for befowling our land. Thank you. Sincerely, John Nahay --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hello, Cyber-T! It is an honor to meet someone who is both in the military AND promotes vegetarianism for the sake of animals. I am sorry to say I am not in the US military. But, it could be worse: I could be in somebody else's military! I had entertained the idea of entering the military when I was 20 years old. But I am now 40, with 2 artificial knees and crippling arthritis. Obviously, there is no simple description of our philosophies. I like to call myself "liberal" simply to oppose all the self-proclaimed conservatives, but it sounds too wishy-washy. I prefer to call myself radical. But, BECAUSE I am a radical, I am NOT a pacifist -- precisely because Western liberal ideals are worth fighting for. Correction: as General George Patton would have said, it is worth making the OPPOSING side fight and die. WE shouldn't have to. For example, it is the NAZIS who owe us for all those killed in WWII, NOT the future generation who had nothing to do with murdering and enslaving blacks, gays, Jews, and communists. How can I live in a world which still seems polarized along a capitalist vs. communist economic mentality, when I think we should be maybe 30% communist (for BIG projects, like power plants, transportation) but 70% capitalist (for small businesses)? I cannot simply pick up and move to China, which claims to be 100% communist and would throw me in prison for any deviation from their ideology. Needless to say, they are anything BUT communist, just in name only. They are a slave state. The stated purpose of communism is to give choices and control and power to the workers. Plus, China is a brutal dictatorship more so because of old outdated nationalistic beliefs, murdering drug dealers and pornographers with the death penalty, none of which has anything to do with communism/capitalism. How can I live with other liberals and radicals who think the US was wrong to invade Iraq and overthrow President Hussein, when I believe the good of getting rid of Saddam minus the bad of Iraqis and Americans killed outweighed the bad of his continued tyrrany and torture? I also do not understand how having the UN on one's side and having MORE countries help overthrow Iraq makes it MORE right? If *I* were Saddam Hussein, I would want FEWER countries opposing me, not MORE. I would not consider it to be MORE right to have more enemies. According to Iraqi law, I am sure, it was a VIOLENT ILLEGAL CRIMINAL TERRORIST act to overthrow their government, just as the legal profession in the US would believe it would be an illegal violent criminal terrorist act for someone to do the same to the US government if that someone didn't like OUR laws. How can I get conservatives to understand that? How do I force conservatives to choose to talk either about utilitarian consequences of violent force: the good outweighing the bad -- in which case there are MANY prisons in this world which should be blown open and have the prisoners freed -- OR to talk about what is LEGAL? They are NOT allowed to have it both ways. If I were locked up in some jail cell anywhere in the world, I would want ANYbody to come bust me out -- I wouldn't care if it were the FBI, the US Marines, or Last Chance for Animals. I would not want to wait around for non-violent protesting crap to set me free. And how the HELL can I get members of the military and police -- of ANY country -- to get it into their heads that war/violence/force is just an extension of protesting. They are all forms of opposition, varying in degree, obviously. So, what the hell do military people think when they say that they are fighting for my "right" to protest? They fight for my right to view pornography, watch television, or swim in the ocean. I don't protest because I WANT to. I protest, such as an anti-fur protest, because I HAVE to. I look at this "military vs. protestors" attitude as if the air force does a bombing run and then says to the infantry on the ground: we bombed the area first so you will have the "freedom" and the "right" to go in there and kill the enemy. That is an idiotic way of thinking: the infantry don't want to HAVE to have an enemy to fight in the first place. Unless they do, in which case this whole idea that soldiers are the FIRST to oppose war is a lie. I look at all the sacrifices made by BOTH members of the military AND social activists as "covering my back" as *I* continue MY role in history and fight for what's right, such as freeing animals from factory farms and fur farms. What an INSIGNIFICANT hardship in this day and age for the vast majority of people to give up eating meat. Yet the savings of torture and terror on the animal is ENORMOUS. Another animal does not have to be bred needless for our palate. I like the way the military thinks about logistics -- the use of complicated game-theoretic models. So, why can't the ordinary soldier extend these ideas to ANY aspect of life? Believe me -- I would MUCH rather have the FBI, the US military on my side in our battle for animal rights. It's a shame -- will we as a human species have to fight a war over THAT to, with millions of humans suffering and dying (of course, I care only about those who suffer and die on the pro-animal side), before people get the magnitude of the consequences of their choices into their little heads? And how DARE anyone compare the trivial pleasure of eating meat and the pain to FULLY aware animals to the dire necessity of a woman needing an abortion -- even if it IS her and her lover's fault. Sure, fetuses -- animal or human -- have the same right to a preference utilitarian analysis as any other organism. But, in most cases, the fetuses' suffering is always less than the suffering they will feel when forced into this world and the suffering and burden forced upon those already born. Dr. Peter Singer of Princeton University has articulated the concepts of specieism and what rights ANY organism has better than anyone. Finally, I am an atheist -- an atheist who also believes that humans have been visited by extraterrestrials. Do I have proof? No! But do I believe circumstantial evidence exists, like photographs and brave military people coming forward to report their sightings and radar trackings? Yes. Do I believe the Riemann Hypothesis is true? Yes. Do I have a proof? No! Do I believe circumstantial evidence exists? Yes. Here are two oppressed groups in our society: atheists and those who believe ETs is a credible hypothesis for some ufos. Here is the BIG difference between believing in ETs and believing in god: at least ONE photograph (in fact, many hundreds) of a UFO exists. Not one photo of a god sighting exists. Here is the BIG difference between believing ETs are an explanation for some ufos and psychic power/astrology are bullshit (in my opinion): ET/UFO events happen TO people, not by their choosing. And, even ET debunkers believe the universe is filled with other life. Believing ET/UFO events is consistent with the general philosophy of the universe that "nothing comes easy" and "technology and advancement of thought is the result of eons of evolution" and "all sprituality/magic is just super-advanced technology". Some ETs could have this technology, having many years of evolution ahead of us. But so-called psychics and astrologers are ordinary humans who claim to have some great power above the rest of us. And anyone can make up a load of crap like relating one's birthdate to human characteristics. How can *I* ever hope to make THIS distinction known to the media or our government? EVEN IF I AM WRONG about these ideas, the world should know that NOT EVERYONE is polarized along the same categories of belief that the media and government lumps together. Now -- how the HELL can I become a member of an effective fighting team (I still seek jobs in government and military-- I know I will never be the soldier on the ground at this stage in my life) if there are so many beliefs which would differ from those with whom I have to work? How the hell do I get them on MY side? P.S. I give you permission to express these ideas to others you know in the military. Sincerely, Dr.John Michael Nahay 25 Chestnut Hill Lane Columbus, NJ 08022-1039 Phone: 609-298-3650 ------------------------------------------------------------------ St. Petersburg Times, 10 July 2002 Editor: Let's first straighten out this idiotic myth: There ARE and WERE plenty of atheists in foxholes, combat, etc. Just because we were doing our jobs instead of getting down on our knees making it obvious like the whiny believers doesn't mean we weren't there. I'd like to invite all the believers who don't accept this to drop into an Atheists of Florida meeting sometime and they'll have the chance to meet several atheist veterans. Second, it's sad that the veterans you have published recently risked their lives for a concept they don't comprehend. You can't have freedom UNDER anyone, not a god, a government, a flag, or whatever. Finally, let's clear up something about courage. It takes zero courage to rant along with the crowd about a popular idea. As one of the rare public faces representing the estimated 16 percent of the nonbelieving population, I and my fellow out-of-the-closet atheists face domestic terrorists like Timothy McVeigh, John Salvi, and other such god-believing fanatics all the time. I've personally received on-air death threats doing public television, and a few letters and phone calls have reached me over the years. I'm in potential combat every day, without an M-16 or other squad members to defend me. Unlike the believers, I'm not counting on some deity to save me from them. Which takes more courage, going to a war zone with a few thousand armed friends to kill a few clearly identified enemies, or living in the middle of them, mostly alone, for life? I'm in the foxhole NOW, and I'm still an atheist! -- Brent Yaciw, Wesley Chapel ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recently William G. Myers III has been nominated to be a judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Not only should Myers not be appointed, he should be kicked out of this country, if not locked up in prison for life like he does to so many of his bovine victims. Myers hates America as proven by his anti-animal and anti-environmental extremism. He is responsible for torturing and murdering billions of American cows and other animals as a major representative of the beef industry. He is an un-American coward for refusing to take a stand against the needless killing of animals for food in the 21st century. There is no place for anti-Americans like Myers on any bench in this country who think only of their own freedom, not of the need for freedom of those he confines in factory-farm stalls. Please spread the word! Please let me know what you intend to do about this matter. Thank you. Sincerely, Dr. John Nahay 25 Chestnut Hill Lane Columbus, NJ 08022 lamellicorn@comcast.net -=-------------------------------------------- Sherry Rush, Executive Director Miss Maryland Organization 609 Fairmeadows Blvd. Hagerstown, MD 21740 Email: Srush@allconet.org Dear Ms. Rush, Why are you letting an anti-American industry like the Fur Trappers Association and fur "farmers" bully you into giving away fur as a "prize" in the Miss Maryland Organization. There is nothing that looks uglier on a Miss Maryland contestant than a fur coat. Furriers hate America and American animals. They hate our ideals of freedom, especially the principle of freedom from confinement, torture, and for minks and foxes. They ought to be thrown in prison for the rest of their lives, electrocuted, and skinned for the terror they cause to animals and to the courageous animal-rights soldiers who fight to end this needless holocaust. My question to you: when will one of your Miss Maryland contestants actually take a stand on an actual IMPORTANT issue, like outlawing the breeding and killing of animals for fur in this country, rather than waste our time making easy rants against drugs and pornography and others things that already are illegal in many cases? Sincerely, Dr. John Nahay 1013 Rosemere Avenue Silver Spring, MD 20904-3008 -------------------------------------------------- Until Governor Blanco's law 1244 specifically outlawing hog-dog rodeos goes into effect in August, there are already anti-cruelty laws on the books which you can enforce against these un-American criminals. Throw those rodeo promoters and audience members into prison for 10 years! They hate America and stand against every American principle of freedom, such as the freedom from terror and torture they inflict on American animals. Thank you. Sincerely, Paul Edwards New Orleans, LA ------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Maddox, You could not have said it any better about Christopher Reeve. Here's a guy who gets paralyzed BY HIS OWN FOOLISHNESS BY DOING AN ACTIVITY PURELY FOR PLEASURE, NOT NECESSITY -- and assholes refer to him as "brave"?! Reeve really is a grade-A #1 asshole. Great -- he's for stem-cell research. So am I. But, it is ALWAYS an EASY cause begging the government for MORE money. That NEVER takes any courage. In contrast, it takes courage to change the law: either to outlaw something that's already legal or legalize something that is already illegal. I did not like it when Reeve gave a speech at the March for the Animals in Washington, DC in 1990. He told us to "go slower" and not push so far in our agenda. How does ANY political agenda move forward FASTER by going SLOWER? Whether one agrees with them or not, more people are vegetarian now than BEFORE People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals showed up. Let's see. Let X = # of vegetarians created since PETA came along, say, 1% of the US population. Let's say X = 2,500,000. Y = 10 cows, 500 chickens, 20 pigs 1 person would have otherwise eaten in their lifetime. (I could be high on the cow count but I am most assuredly very low on the chicken count.) That's X*Y = 1.325 billion fully conscious non-fetal souls spared from being needless dragged into this world, confined their entire lives, and then killed with minimal anesthesia -- all because of our palette? You think PETA would have ever achieved these results by simply focussing all their energy only on neutering cats and dogs as the Humane Society of the US does? What does Reeve think technology like stem-cell research is for? It's to provide more choices in life: it's so we can eat AND the animals don't have to suffer and die also. And if the "equal rights" philosophy of PETA does not appeal to Reeve, then perhaps the philosophy of Dr. Peter Singer of Princeton University and my personal hero (and someone who really IS brave) suits him better. In essence, Dr. Singer realizes the words "rights" and "same) are useful fictions. It makes no more sense to say all humans have the same rights (the last time I checked, I don't seem to have the right to invade Iraq, but perhaps Mr. Bush did - ) than to say a fetus or a cow or Mr. AIDS virus all have the same right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is a case where what Peta DOES is more correct than what they SAY: the good of pushing people towards the alternatives outweighs the bad, although perhaps not quite for the right reasons. Dr. Singer calls his philosophy "preference utilitarianism". Those of us in mathematical operations research call it "game theory", but taking all organisms' interests into consideration equally. Game theory weighs consequences of EVENTS, and leaves idiotic meaningless questions like "comparing the value of the life of an ant to the value of George Bush" in the trash can where they belong. If someone is torturing or imprisoning me, I wouldn't give a damn whether I had human or pig or George Bush DNA. What matters is that I am suffering and I would want it to end unless it caused someone else to suffer more. Since the media is too stupid to analyze situations in a formal mathematical way -- let alone to use non-rigorous natural human language in an intelligent way -- I propose the following soundbites be used: "Equal pain has equal value." and "One vote per neuron!" Personally, I think animals are dumb as bricks. I don't believe a lot of the studies which say they do abstract reasoning. I really don't like being around them. But I feel the same about most people! I feel Peta is a bit wrong by constantly trotting out the animal lovers and the "kindness to animals" bit. But the beauty of "animal rights" is that one doesn't have to like animals to be in favor of wanting an end to needless torture. If rights are to be based solely on abstract reasoning ability than on ability to feel pain, then I should have the right to kill and eat most other humans, since I have a PhD in math! This is not a complicated issue (perhaps I should say "mess") like going to war in Iraq where one has to weigh (overtly at least) the deaths caused by Saddam Hussein against the deaths caused by going to war. This is not an issue like abortion: the suffering of a woman going through 9 months of pregnancy and then the misery to woman and child thereafter versus the bloody messy death of a fetus -- whatever pain they feel. I strongly doubt, however, any "pro-lifers" care about the pain the fetus feels. Almost all of them care only about some abstract value of life -- not what that life itself experience. Sure, the pro-lifers make one good point: everyone SHOULD know the consequences of ALL actions, including the effects on the fetus. Dr. Singer's philosophies take that into account. But, if I recall -- I was a fetus once, too. And now I am a fully formed (although some would disagree with me) human being. So, I believe that qualifies me as objective on the issue of abortion. And, I can tell you -- life is hard and miserable and yet I am too scared to die. Perhaps that's a contradiction in myself, but I know I'm not alone, and -- hey -- the pro-lifers got what they asked for: I'm born now and now they gotta deal with me. I can tell you, it would have been better for ALL of us to have been killed early on in the womb before being born. These arrogant cowboys and ranchers have the nerve to compare their selfish little urge to eat cows to a woman's right to choose an abortion. (Bush is trying to push through some former beef industry spokesman named Myers to be a judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals). These un-American un-patriotic America-hating assholes obviously don't care that, in contrast, animal rights lobbyists face MASSIVE and PERVASIVE industries: meat, fur, experimentation, etc. with BILLIONS of dollars at their disposal. (These assholes hate American animals at least.) Cowardly religious activists have NOTHING to complain about: I don't see billboards and ads every 10 minutes on tv promoting abortion and hardcore pornography the way meat is promoted. I don't see abortion doctors and women who have abortions whooping it up and hootin' and hollerin' at a baked fetus barbecue. And, most importantly of all, I don't see abortion doctors and women DELIBERATELY BREEDING MORE HUMAN FETUSES just for the thrill of bringing more consciousnesses into this world to kill and torture. Say, hunters -- you have complained for decades about the "overpopulation" of animals on this planet. So, why don't you all just put up or shut up: shut down the factory farms once and for all? Sorry ranchers - but it is FAR more accurate to liken factory farming and experimentation on non-fetal animals to the Nazi holocaust than the anti-environmental terrorists have to compare mild EPA law enforcement to Nazi Gestapo tactics. Just type "Jewish vegetarians" into a Google search engine and one can find Jews who believe the same, such as the late Nobel Laureate Isaac Bashevis Singer, http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2004/7/emw138917.htm. (I enjoy typing in all sorts of combinations of causes, like "gays for guns", "Christian socialists", etc. into the Google search engine. It's amazing: one can always find at least one reference to any combination of political cause.) And if Hitler was a vegetarian, why didn't he make the entire Nazi army vegetarian? No -- Hitler was just another wimpy selfish health vegetarian. And, even if he were a vegetarian for the animals, I never said being a vegetarian was SUFFICIENT to be a good person. Not murdering and enslaving most of Europe, Asia, and Africa is also on my checklist. And why punish innocent animals further by eating them just because Hitler was an asshole? Now, where is Christopher Reeve to say all THIS on Larry King Live? Feel free to publish my ideas (if you wish)-- but ONLY in full. I'd go on, but I think the pro-life vegans can figure it out for themselves that I don't mean them, so they shouldn't feel offended, except for those who spend all their time trying to outlaw abortion but not meat, in which case I DO mean to offend them. Sincerely, John (radical, not liberal; 70% libertarian - 30% socialist, not pacifist) Dr.John Michael Nahay 25 Chestnut Hill Lane Columbus, NJ 08022-1039 Phone: 609-298-3650 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are so many ideas I wish to get across to people whenever I write to people to get them to stop being cruel to animals. Here's one recently. Robert A. Michaels President, COO, and Director General Growth Properties 110 N. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606 312-960-5000 312-960-5475 (fax) Robert.Michaels@generalgrowth.com Dear Mr. Michaels, Please keep exotic animals displays out of your malls. Free-market capitalism is based upon the notion of consent. The animals did not give their permission to be forced into cages and sold and displayed.Wal-Mart, Borders, Toys“R”Us, Festival Foods, Shaw’s Supermarkets, Hull Storey Retail Group, and Colonial Properties Trust have already barred animal exhibits from their stores. And don't be fooled by names like "Bridgeport Nature Center" promoting "conservation". Banning meat and fur for the animals' sake invariably benefits the environment and humans, too. But when there is a conflict, animal rights takes precedence over environmental and conservation concerns. Only individual sentient beings matter. The animals don't care about abstract concepts like "capitalism" or even "conservation". They don't care whether their entire species is near extinction. The ONLY thing they care about is getting from one moment to the next without discomfort or pain or terror or confinement. Can you imagine being cooped up in a phone booth for your entire life? I don't think you would care whether it was People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or the US Army (which I would prefer) to come rescue you. And these are not animals in a fetal state, either. Please do the right thing. If you are going to take a stand against anything sold or displayed in your stores, take a stand against exotic animal displays and meat and fur. That's only a small (10%) part of your sales. There are plenty of other things (fake meat products, non-leather shoes) which you can market in their place. I am not protesting the other 90%. Thank you, Robert Cauldwell, Wheeling, WV ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Peta (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is an absolute master at making thought-provoking disturbing humorous sexy controversial PSAs (public service announcements). This one... http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=cat-sex shows animatronic cats doing what comes naturally (i.e. having sex). Obviously, the message is to spay and neuter your cats -- NOT to hold a free cat orgy in your livingroom. Here's their ad they never got to air during the SuperBowl http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=super_bowl_60 As entertaining as these are, and as courageous as Peta is for their work, I would MUCH prefer a "Let's Blow 'em All Away!" ad in the style of 1940s pro-war-propaganda cartoons used to energize the nation against the Nazis. This would bring in the WWII generation on our side against the tyranny of breeding, torture imprisonment, and killing of animals. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Just using every single soundbite and phrase that the enemy (on animal issues) uses agianst us, or that pro-war people use against anti-war people. In spite of all the real or imagined benefits of debating strategy, the hard reality is that wars are won mostly by (at least 80%) by brute force. Just look at WWII -- not everybody could work in the comfort of cryptography or intelligence. The war effort mostly needed bodies just to blow the brains out of the enemy. One certainly needs to optimize one's goals. For example, I consider myself 70% libertarian/capitalist (e.g. I hope Paul's Cygnet succeeds), 30% socialist. Who knows what the ideal ratio is: perhaps 69-31?. B ut, once one has calculated what the fair balance is, then what one must do from that point on is push everyone else like crazy to that optimal point. Of course, one is still forced to make choices about prioritizing whom to push more based upon how close they are to that optimal point. However if person or persons A is closest to that optimum and everyone else is farther, then I need to devote all my efforts to pushing everyone else closer to that point. In the long term, that is all that conservatives and anti-animal people have done: just rant and rave endlessly and not give a damn in the short-term whom it offends. In the long-term, they get the net mass of humanity moving closer to the point THEY think is optimum. So, that's all *I*, and hopefully others who side with me on animal issues, have to do. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr. Nancy Halpern, Director Division of Animal Health New Jersey Department of Agriculture P.O. Box 330 Trenton, NJ 08625-0330 Dear Dr. Halpern, Meat-eaters hate America. Throw them in prison for life. Let them get a taste of what it is like to be thrown into a tiny cell with no hope of escape for their entire lives. That is only a small part of the torture and terror these unpatriotic cowards inflict upon other Americans in factory farms. These is absolutely no need for factory farming or raising animals or killing animals for food in this or any future century. We are supposed to be so technologically "advanced" as a society, yet those who continue to promote and advocate eating meat continue to advocate a brutal, barbaric, needless practice. Why should my tax dollars go to help them at all? Doctors and nurses should be allowed the right to deny meat-eaters any medical attention whatsoever. Electricians, trash collectors, plumbers, water company personnel -- you name it -- should be given the choice of NOT doing any business with meat-eaters. Period. Please let me know how you plan to start by criminalizing factory farming. Thank you. Sincerely, Sara Baker Atlantic City, NJ lamellicorn@comcast.net -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for responding to the animals' concerns. Please understand: in this time of perpetual war and patriotism, it is natural for people to advocate only the harshest response to abuse, torture, and confinement for our fellow American animals -- unless the perpetrators can offer a VERY good reason for it. In a society and a land of capitalist laws which propagate the libertarian belief that no individual should be held responsible or forced to sacrifice for the benefit of another, it follows that neither should those capable of feeling extreme loneliness and confinement in laboratory cages be forced to sacrifice for us. We're not talking about fetuses here, after all. Obviously, no one demands anyone to follow libertarian principles perfectly. However, the libertarian principles have been applied so lop-sided and biased to such an extreme in favor of letting humans do whatever they want to animals for trivial pleasures that, unfortunately, humans will have to be forced to go without the occasional benefits of testing and experimenting on animals in order to get them to think about the consequences of their actions towards animals and change their behavior. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have no money to give you, but I give you my best wishes for a successful campaign for Senator. Your eloquence is brilliant, and I like one of the slogans (who was the original author?): "Politics was never meant to be a career." In fact, I feel sorry for you: I feel sorry that you HAVE to run for office. You should not HAVE to. I wrestle with great ethical decisions all the time. I am trying to reconcile the notions of "utilitarianism" and "libertarianism". Is there some logically consistent way of combining the best of these ideals? I consider myself a libertarian for animal rights: that is, animals have the right to the same utilitarian consideration as humans. Dr. Peter Singer at Princeton University has articulated these ideas the best. And "utilitarianism" is just an overly simplified for what mathematical game theorists have articulated brilliantly and better than anyone else over the past century. So, how can I combine Dr. Singer's opposition to specieism - basing moral considerations on irrelevant factors like race, gender, species and not the only ones that matter like suffering in all its forms and fear of death -- with the single unifying principle of libertarianism -- that of the non-initiation of force -- with the mathematical modelling of game theorists in decision-theory? And, finally, how can I make these ideas IMMEDIATELY practical? As a businessman, you would know this best. Nadeem@arifkhan.org ------------------------------------------- Dear Katharine Green, Director of Corporate Communications, It is EXTREMELY irreponsible and BIASED of Dr. Thomas A. Cellucci, President of Zyvex, to support corporate welfare for his non-existent industry. I am 2000% in favor of nanotechnology. I see its most promising accomplishments to be the replacement of animals for experimentation, food, and clothing. This will be a blessing to the billions of animals needlessly bred, confined, tortured, and murdered in the worlds today in laboratories and factory farms. However, the reality is, NO advancements in nanotechnology will EVER take place without advancements in mathematics taking place FIRST, namely, solving nonlinear differential equations such as the Schrodinger wave equation for multi particle systems. Furthermore, NO government money should be used to fund this research, UNLESS we had a TRULY socialist system where EVERYONE is guaranteed a job in this business if they want. Unless you wish to go to that logical extreme, which is optimal, the second best option is to go to the other logical extreme: an entirely libertarian market. That means NO government corporate welfare handouts. Companies should be forced to live and die on their own labors. The sad reality is, right now, and for the next thousand years, there will not be ANY jobs in nanotechnology. Not one. Anyone who claims to work in this field lies and obviously wastes time doing other things on the job, defrauding investors and government officials alike with false claims about the work they do. Sincerely, Robert Porter, M.D. ------------------------------------------------------ The Honorable Mike Cox Michigan Attorney General G. Mennen Williams Building, 7th Fl. 525 W. Ottawa St. P.O. Box 30212 Lansing, MI 48909 Dear Attorney General Cox, You have a serious problem in your state which needs IMMEDIATE action. Some worthless lazy do-nothing lawyer named Karen Bahrman in Alger County won't get off her fat ass and prosecute two cowardly cops who threw a citizen's cat in a carrier cage into a river of freezing water to drown. We are not talking about a feline fetus here. Unless those two cops were in the middle some immediate life-and-death struggle, which obviously they were not, and had no other alternatives to killing the cat, and unless these individuals show any redeeming qualities like being ethical vegetarians (not silly selfish health vegetarians) and advocating outlawing all animal breeding in Michigan which creates the overpopulation of cats and dogs and puts pressure on animal shelters in the first place, you should drown those cops in freezing water in a similar manner. There is a little thing vets use now to kill animals as painlessly as possible. It's called "anesthesia". Those cops hate America and American animals. There is no room in MY America for terrorists who fight and obstruct our war for animal rights and justice. And you should throw that unpatriotic Bahrman woman in prison, too, for practicing law without a license. I hope to hear you take action against these individuals or prove that they have met the conditions listed above. Sincerely, Sgt. Gary Parrond P.S. Aren't you that fascist state that wastes taxpayer dollars holding a national hero like Dr. Jack Kevorkian hostage? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Docket No. 2004N-0264 Food and Drug Administration 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061 Rockville, MD 20852 Dear FDA: Since 1997, you have prohibited feeding most mammalian protein to ruminants, but the ban is a joke - allowing things like blood, used poultry litter (which includes spilled feed, feathers and feces), and plate waste (uneaten meat and other scraps from restaurants) to be fed to ruminants. I was proud of you when you announced on Jan. 26 that you would no longer allow these risky practices, effective "immediately upon publication" of an interim final rule. I urge you to do your patriotic duty by outlawing the use of blood, poultry litter, plate waste, and ALL other animal products (with the exception of milk) in feed for all farm animals, not just ruminants. Until you do what is right, by taking a stand of outlawing the breeding and murder of animals for food, with a temporary exception of breeding non-mammalians to feed our overpopulation of cats and dogs until that problem is resolved, you should put the perpetrators of factory farming torture in prison for life without parole, or execute them. Begin with the CEOs and advertisers for meat. They hate America most. They should suffer the greatest punishment. Then go after the richest meat-eaters first, followed by the poorest and the selfish health vegetarians who go out of their way to interfere with the work of animal rights vegetarians. The poor minimum-wage workers in supermarkets and fast food restaurants who at least THEMSELVES eat no meat and have no choice about where to work should be granted immunity. There is absolutely NO place for meat-eaters in America. They are simply cowards. I wish to hear how you plan to take action. Thank you. Sincerely, Dr.John Michael Nahay 25 Chestnut Hill Lane Columbus, NJ 08022-1039 Phone: 609-298-3650 ------------------------------------------------------------------ HOORAY! FINALLY, someone even SLIGHTLY more aggressive on animal protection. But HSUS will never get a dime from me until they advocate outlawing breeding animals for food and fur and most forms of experimentation on vertebrates entirely. Hunters and animal breeders and meat-eaters are the extremists: putting THEIR trivial little selfish interests above the enormous interests of the animals to be free of torture and pain and terror. People will never go vegetarian unless you force them. This Wayne Pacelle is widening the scope of animal protection ONLY becaue of much more radical efforts on the part of PETA and Last Chance for Animals. These dumb morons at the HSUS are too stupid and cowardly to admit that. Until we put people in prison for eating meat, we should let EVERYone out of prison. Especially start with the child molestors and rapists, since they are punished more severely in proportion to their crimes than, say, corporate crooks. Then, whenever someone gets raped or molested, we can just excuse it by saying, "Well, if you want to be a non-rapist or non-child molestor, that's your right. But it's also a person's right to be a rapist or child molestor. It is wrong to force one's lifestyle on the rapist." That's how it goes: trivialize another person's interests until they take your interests seriously. Unpatriotic, America-hating meat-eaters LOVE that kind of world. I'd prefer a more rational approach to solving problems. But if that's what they want, that's what they get. John ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: spunth@thefreesite.com I wanted to praise you, David Graham, for your online essay... "A Libertarian Replies to Tibor Machan's 'Why Animal Rights Don't Exist'". http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/graham/graham1.html (I've admit I am not a perfect libertarian, since I believe in using non-libertarian means -- such as giving positive rights to libertarians for animal rights by forcing non-libertarians to slave for them -- to make up for all the past non-libertarian initiations of force.) Also, I am sick and tired of hearing both pro-war and anti-war people preach to anti-war people: "Even though you may be against a particular war (or all wars), you should not blame/disrespect/spit upon the soldiers." That is bullshit -- since the soldiers, unless they were drafted, DELIBERATELY knew BEFORE they joined that they were going to do some other person's bidding. One should not FORCE anyone to respect ANYone else. They should be allowed to CHOOSE. And I say this from the point of view of someone who is NOT a pacifist and does NOT automatically rule out violent pre-emptive force on the part of any government or any non-government organization against any other IF THEY HAVE A GOOD REASON -- which means, the good outweighs the bad on all individuals affected in reverse proportion to how much force they initiated. (I try to adhere to the philosophy of the international hero , Dr. Peter Singer.) But, even if one accepts this piece of political rhetoric, then it is an absolute logical necessity that one not insult/defame/blame, etc. etc. ANYone -- even "screaming animal rights activists" or "Ralph Nader" or "communists", or anybody. No matter what the cause. Because EVERYbody fights for something, and more importantly, to quote Karl Marx, they were all forced into a world not of their making. Period. Logically, rationally -- regardless of what political and legal rhetoric says --there is no distinction between "terrorist" and "soldier" and "lawyer". Everyone is just an agent. What matters is the cause, how much force they use, and on whom that force is levied. Sincerely, John Congratulations, Governor Pataki! You did the right thing, signing S 5172 into law, making it a felony to breed or sell any animals for fighting purposes in our grand state of New York! The animals of New York will thank you for ending mindless and insane torture. This is a small but necessary step towards ending idiotic killing. Now you need to extend this protection to factory bred and farmed animals by outlawing meat and fur. Go after the cowardly America-hating animal breeders of this country with the same vengeance which President Bush has shown towards dictator Saddam Hussein! Thank you! Sincerely, Dr. Edward Reston Subject: Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars > http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece Of course, I've known this for 25 years. I'm sure those who researched it knew it a lot longer. No one can call themselves an "environmentalist" if they eat meat. Besides torturing animals, this unnecessary pollution is another reason reproducing animals for food should be outlawed and penalties made very severe. Eating animals in this society is a 1000 times worse than molesting children. This is the great thing about Vita: she boldly tells people the truth about the environmental damage caused by unnecessary meat production as well as the hypocrisy of anyone calling themselves "moral" who does not go vegetarian or otherwise change their eating and buying habits -- in particular religious folks who refuse to do so. Naturally, just like any other political cause, whether it's to ban marijuana or legalize marijuan, to ban armed robbery or to make a rmed robbery legal, outlawing meat will happen only by endlessly and relentlessly demanding it from our legislators. If you say people should and can respect each other because of differences of opinion, then you absolutely have to respect a person no matter whether they say that making copies of copyrighted videotapes is perfectly legal or that one should blow up the White House or kill the president or rape children whether for good reasons or bad. It also follows that you do not believe in "mental sickness" at all, so you cannot call the opposing person "crazy". Furthemore, since either one side or the other must have its way, then you absolutely have to respect the opposing side if they have their way, no matter whether they make copies of copyrighted videotapes or blow up the White House or kill the president or rape children whether for good reasons or bad.