its been a while since I posted a new one of Pablo... quality isn't so good, its a cell phone shot.
Monday, September 01, 2008
pablo_on_sunday_mornng
its been a while since I posted a new one of Pablo... quality isn't so good, its a cell phone shot.
Open Letter to the Zimmerman Brothers
I know this is "old news" but it's been bugging me constantly ever since I heard about it. So here is an open letter to the brothers Zimmerman....
Mr. Zimmerman,
I am not a member of the media. I'm not a reporter, journalist for any magazine, newspaper or tv show. I work as a kennel tech in a small family-owned pet shoppe in New Jersey, who absolutely do not condone the nature of your business, your behavior or the course of action you've followed.
I take care of small dogs, many of them similar to the ones you and your brother brutally killed late last July. I take good care of the dogs and other small animals I come into contact with, treating them with the same kindness and respect that I give my own pets. With that said, it comes as a total shock that anyone could so violently kill those eighty dogs, those otherwise perfectly healthy dogs simply because some alleged expert recommended it.
Wouldn't it seem right for someone who claims to value family, God, religion, and the simple life - as your Mennonite community would have us believe - would also value all eighty of those lives that were suddenly taken? But yet those animals were killed, one by one, with no thought given toward any other course of action. Certainly with no remorse whatsoever. I can't call that being any sort of Christian, I'd have to call that hypocrisy.
What was going through your mind, Mr. Zimmerman, as you completed the task you set for yourself? Did any of them whimper before you murdered them? I'm sure some of them did, a detail that would make you even more monstrous for continuing. Not so much human as a monster. Anyone who could prove themselves that cold, despicable, such a killer with no conscience deserves to be subject to shame. This is how you represent your families and community.
One of you once stated to the public, "I have a thousand people against me." That may have been true at the time, but as time goes on, I believe those numbers will be greater. It's true you have been and still are being judged, but not wrongly so.
There are people who've spent their entire lives devoted to rescuing and caring for animals like the ones you killed. The saddest part is that this entire situation could have been prevented, had you had the heart to do the right thing: spare those puppies from death and let those people find loving homes for them. Instead you let impatience and financial issues take over.
I sincerely hope you never have contact with any other animal again.
Mr. Zimmerman,
I am not a member of the media. I'm not a reporter, journalist for any magazine, newspaper or tv show. I work as a kennel tech in a small family-owned pet shoppe in New Jersey, who absolutely do not condone the nature of your business, your behavior or the course of action you've followed.
I take care of small dogs, many of them similar to the ones you and your brother brutally killed late last July. I take good care of the dogs and other small animals I come into contact with, treating them with the same kindness and respect that I give my own pets. With that said, it comes as a total shock that anyone could so violently kill those eighty dogs, those otherwise perfectly healthy dogs simply because some alleged expert recommended it.
Wouldn't it seem right for someone who claims to value family, God, religion, and the simple life - as your Mennonite community would have us believe - would also value all eighty of those lives that were suddenly taken? But yet those animals were killed, one by one, with no thought given toward any other course of action. Certainly with no remorse whatsoever. I can't call that being any sort of Christian, I'd have to call that hypocrisy.
What was going through your mind, Mr. Zimmerman, as you completed the task you set for yourself? Did any of them whimper before you murdered them? I'm sure some of them did, a detail that would make you even more monstrous for continuing. Not so much human as a monster. Anyone who could prove themselves that cold, despicable, such a killer with no conscience deserves to be subject to shame. This is how you represent your families and community.
One of you once stated to the public, "I have a thousand people against me." That may have been true at the time, but as time goes on, I believe those numbers will be greater. It's true you have been and still are being judged, but not wrongly so.
There are people who've spent their entire lives devoted to rescuing and caring for animals like the ones you killed. The saddest part is that this entire situation could have been prevented, had you had the heart to do the right thing: spare those puppies from death and let those people find loving homes for them. Instead you let impatience and financial issues take over.
I sincerely hope you never have contact with any other animal again.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Another "WTF?" Moment
Whoever votes Republican this year are absolute idiots... Sarah Palin just may be worse than the devil himself.
Sarah Palin - On the Hunt
Sarah Palin, a moose-hunting, lifetime NRA member guns for D.C.
Article by Brian Braiker / Newsweek / August 30, 2008
Like many Alaskans, Gov. Sarah Palin is a lifelong hunter and strong proponent of Second Amendment rights. A longtime member of the National Rifle Association, she told USA Today when she was running for governor as a Republican in 2006 that "We hunt as much as we can, and I'm proud to say our freezer is full of wild game we harvested here in Alaska." Her own parents had just returned from hunting caribou when they learned that she had been tapped as Sen. John McCain's running mate.
Most Alaskans wouldn't bat an eye at such a lifestyle. (Palin's favorite food? "Moose stew after a day of snowmachining," she told Vogue.) But in selecting a pro-gun female running mate who can probably skin and process a deer, Sen. John McCain may be inviting a debate on gun control into the campaign-and he could be seen as extending an olive branch to the wary right wing of his party: a recent independently-produced video clip by a Palin supporter included footage of her firing an assault rifle with Alaska National Guard soldiers. Such imagery stands in contrast to Sen. Barack Obama, who, in accepting the Democratic Party's nomination yesterday, said assault weapons pose a threat to city's streets. "The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland," he said, "but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals."
Palin publicly applauded the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 ruling in District of Columbia vs. Heller that struck down the District's 32-year-old ban on handguns. Obama hedged, stating that he "always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures." His supporters describe Obama's stance on guns as nuanced; opponents call it deliberately vague. Eugene Volokh, a legal commentator and UCLA law professor, described Palin's stance as "very mainstream, while Obama has been cagier."
"The lines are being more clearly drawn on the gun issue," says Dennis Hennigan of the Brady Center, a gun-reform lobby group. "One day after Senator Obama made it clear that he thinks assault weapons should be banned in a remarkable portion of his speech, here Senator McCain selects someone who is not only proud to be endorsed by [the NRA], an opponent of that ban, but apparently is pretty enthusiastic about the guns themselves." Perhaps. But Palin has a long history of supporting gun-safety education for kids and nobody would expect her to be thrilled by the prospect of AK-47s flooding the streets of Anchorage. "Of course, we want to keep any firearm out of the hands of gang members and felons and drug dealers," says NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre. "But there is no way that Senator Obama can make a claim to be a supporter of the Second Amendment based on his voting record. Governor Palin understands the values of the American public on these types of issues."
Gun ownership in Alaska has little to nothing to do with gangs and everything to do with hunting, which comes with its own array of complicated issues. In 2003, residents in the interior of the state began complaining to state game officials that wild wolves and bears were eating too many moose calves, depleting the stock for hunters (who also presumably love a hot dish of moose stew). Over the past five years the state has intensified its "predator control" program, which reduces the numbers of wolves and bears in the wild in order to inflate the populations of moose, caribou, sheep, deer and other ungulates. Statewide, an average of 1,000 to 1,500 wolves are taken through hunting and trapping each year. Of that total, about 120 to 150 are "harvested" through the predator-control policies, according to Doug Larsen, director of the Division of Wildlife Conservation Department of Fish and Game. In a handful of regions, as many as 60 to 80 percent of the wolf population is targeted.
The practice of deliberately exterminating animals to manipulate the populations of other species is not without controversy. "Palin is on a massive extermination program for wolves across large swaths of Alaska to artificially inflate caribou and moose populations to pacify trophy hunters," says John Toppenberg, the executive director of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance. "It's totally illogical, it's extreme, it's the draconian manipulation of bears and wolves in Alaska." But it is a practice that predates Palin's governorship and remains popular with a majority of Alaskans.
"Her approach to environmental issues generally reflects someone who has grown up and depended upon natural resources, and has the perspective that resources should be used and used responsibly," says Jonathan Adler, director of the Center for Business Law and Regulation at Case Western Reserve University School of Law. "You don't want to reduce the wolf population too much, or it will drop below a sustainable level. There is a certain amount of uncertainty in the field on how to do that. But the consensus is that the folks in Alaska tend to know what they're doing." And as one of their ilk, Palin may be giving Democrats some pause on the eve of the Republican convention. The hunter has them in her sights.
Sarah Palin - On the Hunt
Sarah Palin, a moose-hunting, lifetime NRA member guns for D.C.
Article by Brian Braiker / Newsweek / August 30, 2008
Like many Alaskans, Gov. Sarah Palin is a lifelong hunter and strong proponent of Second Amendment rights. A longtime member of the National Rifle Association, she told USA Today when she was running for governor as a Republican in 2006 that "We hunt as much as we can, and I'm proud to say our freezer is full of wild game we harvested here in Alaska." Her own parents had just returned from hunting caribou when they learned that she had been tapped as Sen. John McCain's running mate.
Most Alaskans wouldn't bat an eye at such a lifestyle. (Palin's favorite food? "Moose stew after a day of snowmachining," she told Vogue.) But in selecting a pro-gun female running mate who can probably skin and process a deer, Sen. John McCain may be inviting a debate on gun control into the campaign-and he could be seen as extending an olive branch to the wary right wing of his party: a recent independently-produced video clip by a Palin supporter included footage of her firing an assault rifle with Alaska National Guard soldiers. Such imagery stands in contrast to Sen. Barack Obama, who, in accepting the Democratic Party's nomination yesterday, said assault weapons pose a threat to city's streets. "The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland," he said, "but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals."
Palin publicly applauded the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 ruling in District of Columbia vs. Heller that struck down the District's 32-year-old ban on handguns. Obama hedged, stating that he "always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures." His supporters describe Obama's stance on guns as nuanced; opponents call it deliberately vague. Eugene Volokh, a legal commentator and UCLA law professor, described Palin's stance as "very mainstream, while Obama has been cagier."
"The lines are being more clearly drawn on the gun issue," says Dennis Hennigan of the Brady Center, a gun-reform lobby group. "One day after Senator Obama made it clear that he thinks assault weapons should be banned in a remarkable portion of his speech, here Senator McCain selects someone who is not only proud to be endorsed by [the NRA], an opponent of that ban, but apparently is pretty enthusiastic about the guns themselves." Perhaps. But Palin has a long history of supporting gun-safety education for kids and nobody would expect her to be thrilled by the prospect of AK-47s flooding the streets of Anchorage. "Of course, we want to keep any firearm out of the hands of gang members and felons and drug dealers," says NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre. "But there is no way that Senator Obama can make a claim to be a supporter of the Second Amendment based on his voting record. Governor Palin understands the values of the American public on these types of issues."
Gun ownership in Alaska has little to nothing to do with gangs and everything to do with hunting, which comes with its own array of complicated issues. In 2003, residents in the interior of the state began complaining to state game officials that wild wolves and bears were eating too many moose calves, depleting the stock for hunters (who also presumably love a hot dish of moose stew). Over the past five years the state has intensified its "predator control" program, which reduces the numbers of wolves and bears in the wild in order to inflate the populations of moose, caribou, sheep, deer and other ungulates. Statewide, an average of 1,000 to 1,500 wolves are taken through hunting and trapping each year. Of that total, about 120 to 150 are "harvested" through the predator-control policies, according to Doug Larsen, director of the Division of Wildlife Conservation Department of Fish and Game. In a handful of regions, as many as 60 to 80 percent of the wolf population is targeted.
The practice of deliberately exterminating animals to manipulate the populations of other species is not without controversy. "Palin is on a massive extermination program for wolves across large swaths of Alaska to artificially inflate caribou and moose populations to pacify trophy hunters," says John Toppenberg, the executive director of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance. "It's totally illogical, it's extreme, it's the draconian manipulation of bears and wolves in Alaska." But it is a practice that predates Palin's governorship and remains popular with a majority of Alaskans.
"Her approach to environmental issues generally reflects someone who has grown up and depended upon natural resources, and has the perspective that resources should be used and used responsibly," says Jonathan Adler, director of the Center for Business Law and Regulation at Case Western Reserve University School of Law. "You don't want to reduce the wolf population too much, or it will drop below a sustainable level. There is a certain amount of uncertainty in the field on how to do that. But the consensus is that the folks in Alaska tend to know what they're doing." And as one of their ilk, Palin may be giving Democrats some pause on the eve of the Republican convention. The hunter has them in her sights.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Must See TV Show
"I want to apologize." "I take full responsibility for my actions." "Those things just didn't have to happen."
—Michael Vick, former football star sentenced to 23 months in federal prison on charges in connection with a dog fighting operation on his property in Virginia
The sentence may have been handed down, but the concern and questions still remain. What happened to the dogs seized in the case? How did Vick get involved in this underworld?
Many of these questions will be answered this Sunday night during "Animal Witness: The Michael Vick Case," the premiere episode of Animal Planet's new series on animal forensics. The one-hour show offers an in-depth look at Vick and exposes the hidden world of dog fighting—and for the first time on national television, lead investigator Bill Brinkman talks about the inner workings of the case.
The episode will also feature interviews with Dr. Melinda Merck, ASPCA Forensic Veterinarian, and Officer Annemarie Lucas, Supervisory Special Investigator, ASPCA Humane Law Enforcement. As reported in ASPCA News Alert, the ASPCA worked closely with federal authorities at every step of the case, first assisting in forensic examinations and later leading behavior evaluations of the seized dogs.
"Animal Witness: The Michael Vick Case" airs at 10:00 P.M. EST this Sunday, August 24; please note, the episode does feature footage from underground dog fighting videos—viewer discretion is advised.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
BS Haters and PA Kennel Dogs Shot Execution Style
Ok, first there's YouTube still not checking the content on flagged videos. An animal welfare friend of mine has been getting her videos flagged by haters on a regular basis. Her videos have always been a show of support of large breed dog owners, showcasing how gentle a breed Rottweilers are, when treated right. YouTube administrators tell her that one more complaint will get her account suspended. If they were doing their job, they would see those flags as unfounded. She's leaving the site on her own now, disillusioned... and the haters win again.
Saw this on the news this morning. Pennslyvania's Governor Ed Rendell wants to change an antiquated law that allowed two sick individuals to shoot 80 of their kennel dogs in eastern PA because a state inspector told them to treat the dogs for flea and fly bites, make sure the cages had solid flooring and to allow better ventilation for the facility because heat was a problem too. Instead of fixing the problem, doing repairs and taking the dogs to the vet, as RECOMMENDED by the inspector, the Zimmerman brothers shot a total of 80 dogs in two of their kennels.
Also, if you live in Pennsylvania, I strongly urge you to openly support Gov. Rendell's call for this much needed change regarding treatment of animals kept in kennels.
Info on HB 2525
08-13-2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Aug. 12, 2008 Department of Agriculture
Commonwealth News Bureau
Room 308, Main Capitol Building
Harrisburg, PA 17120
CONTACT: Chris L. Ryder
(717) 787-5085
SECRETARY WOLFF: PENDING LEGISLATION WOULD HAVE SAVED DOGS KILLED BY BERKS KENNEL OWNERS
Current Law Allows Commercial Breeders to Shoot Dogs
HARRISBURG - Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture Dennis Wolff released the following statement in response to the shooting of 80 dogs at two Berks County kennels:
“The recent shooting of 80 dogs at two Berks County kennels is saddening. The decision by commercial breeders to kill healthy dogs instead of paying to repair a kennel and seek veterinary care is alarming, and will likely outrage many people. Unfortunately, the killing of the dogs was legal under current Pennsylvania law.
“The two kennels involved have both voluntarily closed, but until our state’s outdated dog law is changed kennel owners may continue to kill their dogs for any reason they see fit, even if it is simply to save money. We can’t afford to wait any longer to pass legislation that would ban commercial kennel owners from killing their dogs.
“House Bill 2525, introduced in May, would allow only veterinarians to euthanize dogs in commercial breeding kennels. The bill would strengthen current dog laws and provide better standards for the health and safety of dogs in commercial breeding kennels without burdening other types of kennels that house dogs. The legislature has an opportunity to pass this important legislation this fall, and they should -- as doing so will assure that this activity will be illegal in PA commercial breeding kennels moving forward."
Rather than seek medical attention for dogs suffering from fleas and fly sores, kennel owners Ammon and Elmer Zimmerman of Kutztown shot all 80 of their dogs to save costs. The Zimmermans, owners of A&J Kennel and E&A Kennel, voluntarily surrendered their licenses on July 29 after killing the dogs.
Dog wardens inspected E&A Kennel on July 24, noting several violations for kennel sanitation and maintenance. Wardens also noted fleas and fly sores on 39 of the dogs and ordered veterinary checks. Wardens issued four citations for violations and planned to confirm the veterinary checks during a follow-up inspection. The wardens were notified on July 29 that the owners of both kennels chose to destroy the dogs and dismantle the kennels.
For more information on House Bill 2525, visit www.DogLawAction.com.
Saw this on the news this morning. Pennslyvania's Governor Ed Rendell wants to change an antiquated law that allowed two sick individuals to shoot 80 of their kennel dogs in eastern PA because a state inspector told them to treat the dogs for flea and fly bites, make sure the cages had solid flooring and to allow better ventilation for the facility because heat was a problem too. Instead of fixing the problem, doing repairs and taking the dogs to the vet, as RECOMMENDED by the inspector, the Zimmerman brothers shot a total of 80 dogs in two of their kennels.
Also, if you live in Pennsylvania, I strongly urge you to openly support Gov. Rendell's call for this much needed change regarding treatment of animals kept in kennels.
Info on HB 2525
08-13-2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Aug. 12, 2008 Department of Agriculture
Commonwealth News Bureau
Room 308, Main Capitol Building
Harrisburg, PA 17120
CONTACT: Chris L. Ryder
(717) 787-5085
SECRETARY WOLFF: PENDING LEGISLATION WOULD HAVE SAVED DOGS KILLED BY BERKS KENNEL OWNERS
Current Law Allows Commercial Breeders to Shoot Dogs
HARRISBURG - Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture Dennis Wolff released the following statement in response to the shooting of 80 dogs at two Berks County kennels:
“The recent shooting of 80 dogs at two Berks County kennels is saddening. The decision by commercial breeders to kill healthy dogs instead of paying to repair a kennel and seek veterinary care is alarming, and will likely outrage many people. Unfortunately, the killing of the dogs was legal under current Pennsylvania law.
“The two kennels involved have both voluntarily closed, but until our state’s outdated dog law is changed kennel owners may continue to kill their dogs for any reason they see fit, even if it is simply to save money. We can’t afford to wait any longer to pass legislation that would ban commercial kennel owners from killing their dogs.
“House Bill 2525, introduced in May, would allow only veterinarians to euthanize dogs in commercial breeding kennels. The bill would strengthen current dog laws and provide better standards for the health and safety of dogs in commercial breeding kennels without burdening other types of kennels that house dogs. The legislature has an opportunity to pass this important legislation this fall, and they should -- as doing so will assure that this activity will be illegal in PA commercial breeding kennels moving forward."
Rather than seek medical attention for dogs suffering from fleas and fly sores, kennel owners Ammon and Elmer Zimmerman of Kutztown shot all 80 of their dogs to save costs. The Zimmermans, owners of A&J Kennel and E&A Kennel, voluntarily surrendered their licenses on July 29 after killing the dogs.
Dog wardens inspected E&A Kennel on July 24, noting several violations for kennel sanitation and maintenance. Wardens also noted fleas and fly sores on 39 of the dogs and ordered veterinary checks. Wardens issued four citations for violations and planned to confirm the veterinary checks during a follow-up inspection. The wardens were notified on July 29 that the owners of both kennels chose to destroy the dogs and dismantle the kennels.
For more information on House Bill 2525, visit www.DogLawAction.com.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Monday, July 21, 2008
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Monday, June 30, 2008
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Gone but never forgotten
In today's world, in this country especially the inconsistencies are enormous. The gap between two complete opposite courses of action is unacceptable. In one state, you can have a Michael Vick fighting dog completely transformed into a therapy dog, happily serving a constructive purpose and enjoying every minute of it. In yet another state (Ohio, specifically) breed specific paranoia has caused a local policy of mandating pit bull owners to surrender their beloved pets to animal control where they will be unceremoniously killed.
Now, in Saratoga Springs, Utah that same breed specific paranoia has ended with animal control again waltzing into someone's home and ruthlessly removing someone's beloved pet, falsely assuring the owners that nothing bad would happen to their Chow, Scruffy.
Within hours, Scruffy was dead and the same murderers responsible for the death are still demanding back fees, costs, etc.
Keep in mind that Scruffy's only offense was the urge to run. The dog never attacked anyone, never bit, attempted to bite, never bared teeth, never once acted as an aggressive dog.
I urge you to click on the video link below and hear the owner's story in her own words. Demand justice for Scruffy. Really, folks... this was WRONG. There must be some form of justice here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuFkfGjYblM
Thank you,
~ Baileykix
Now, in Saratoga Springs, Utah that same breed specific paranoia has ended with animal control again waltzing into someone's home and ruthlessly removing someone's beloved pet, falsely assuring the owners that nothing bad would happen to their Chow, Scruffy.
Within hours, Scruffy was dead and the same murderers responsible for the death are still demanding back fees, costs, etc.
Keep in mind that Scruffy's only offense was the urge to run. The dog never attacked anyone, never bit, attempted to bite, never bared teeth, never once acted as an aggressive dog.
I urge you to click on the video link below and hear the owner's story in her own words. Demand justice for Scruffy. Really, folks... this was WRONG. There must be some form of justice here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuFkfGjYblM
Thank you,
~ Baileykix
Sunday, June 22, 2008
This is an outrage!
What kind of monsters run the local animal control in Saratoga Springs, Utah?
Watch this video and find out.
Are you as angry as I am?
The actions must not go unpunished. Spread this video anywhere you can, this story needs to be seen by everyone. What happened to Scruffy is not an isolated case, it can and does happen anywhere there is a secondary agenda, misuse of power, breed specific paranoia, greed, or just simply apathetic individuals who make up an organization who are supposed to CARE about animals.
Thanks for paying attention.
Watch this video and find out.
Are you as angry as I am?
The actions must not go unpunished. Spread this video anywhere you can, this story needs to be seen by everyone. What happened to Scruffy is not an isolated case, it can and does happen anywhere there is a secondary agenda, misuse of power, breed specific paranoia, greed, or just simply apathetic individuals who make up an organization who are supposed to CARE about animals.
Thanks for paying attention.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Justice is SERVED.
Just got this notice in my inbox, thought I'd share it with you all here.
Marine Is Expelled From USMC For Animal Cruelty!
Today, in Honolulu, it was announced that Lance Cpl. David Motari is "being processed for separation" from the Marine Corps according to a USMC news release.
The 17-second video that was posted on YouTube in March was an instant topic of discussion. The clip shows two Marines joking before Motari hurls the puppy into a rocky gully. There was a yelping sound heard as the puppy helplessly flipped through the air. Besides being expelled from the Marine Corp, Motari also received unspecified non-judicial punishment.
The YouTube video was played hundreds of thousands of times before YouTube took it off their site because of a violation of the site's terms of use.
"In honor of the millions of men and women who have worn the Marine uniform, I feel that the Marine Corps has followed through and done a great job in dismissing David Motari from service. This should be an example that no one is above the law and everyone has a moral duty to uphold and represent our great country. It was you, the public, with your outrage who made this happen," replied Chris DeRose in response to hearing the news of Motari's dismissal.
The second Marine in the video, Sgt. Crismarvin Banez Encarnacion, also received unspecified non-judicial punishment. "The actions seen in the Internet video are contrary to the high standards we expect of every Marine and will not be tolerated," Marine Corps Base Hawaii said in a news release.
To watch Chris DeRose's (LCA's President and Founder) initial reaction to the Motari video visit www.YouTube.com
Marine Is Expelled From USMC For Animal Cruelty!
Today, in Honolulu, it was announced that Lance Cpl. David Motari is "being processed for separation" from the Marine Corps according to a USMC news release.
The 17-second video that was posted on YouTube in March was an instant topic of discussion. The clip shows two Marines joking before Motari hurls the puppy into a rocky gully. There was a yelping sound heard as the puppy helplessly flipped through the air. Besides being expelled from the Marine Corp, Motari also received unspecified non-judicial punishment.
The YouTube video was played hundreds of thousands of times before YouTube took it off their site because of a violation of the site's terms of use.
"In honor of the millions of men and women who have worn the Marine uniform, I feel that the Marine Corps has followed through and done a great job in dismissing David Motari from service. This should be an example that no one is above the law and everyone has a moral duty to uphold and represent our great country. It was you, the public, with your outrage who made this happen," replied Chris DeRose in response to hearing the news of Motari's dismissal.
The second Marine in the video, Sgt. Crismarvin Banez Encarnacion, also received unspecified non-judicial punishment. "The actions seen in the Internet video are contrary to the high standards we expect of every Marine and will not be tolerated," Marine Corps Base Hawaii said in a news release.
To watch Chris DeRose's (LCA's President and Founder) initial reaction to the Motari video visit www.YouTube.com
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Beyond all acceptance
Beyond Belief
Well, there was the time she happened to mention how she "trained" puppies not to try and jump out of the top cages: by slapping them. Then there was the time she said she was refusing to handfeed a puppy who wasn't eating on his own because she "didn't have time." (she was told to MAKE time.) Or the time she failed to secure one of the cages and a pug fell out and wandered through the back storeroom before finally settling to sleep in an open locker. Luckily, the fall didn't hurt him, but it could have been much worse. How 'bout all the times she wasn't holding puppies correctly and they fell out of her hands? Or all the times she acted like it was beneath her to handfeed a puppy with a low appetite? Should I mention the trivial laziness? The art of getting by on the barest minimum effort possible? The lying when confronted about any of the above? Never mind the fact that she leaves nasty little comments in the daily log book. The latest one read "I hate you" from last week. The fact that she leaves her work undone for the next shift is nothing compared to the latest incident.
We have a maltese-bichon mix who for some reason won't eat the regular food, so I'd found a good alternative for his appetite. At the time it happened to be kitten food. When a puppy won't eat, I consider it a major sucess to find something he will take to. As always, I entered thorough notes and specific instructions in the log book. Marked down feeding times and weights every half hour because I happen to actually give a shit about these dogs. Perhaps I wrongly assumed that my notes would be read and instructions would be followed, because when I came in at my regular time yesterday morning this dog was totally crashing. I did some immediate action by giving him Enervite, some applesauce, gatorade, water... inbetween massaging to bring him back around. It took me an hour of constant attention to finally get him to where he was alert.
Later I told my boss all this and showed him my notes from the previous day, and her nearly non-existent notes the following shift, which stated nothing about this particular puppy. He said he'd talk to her about it.
Excuse me... after all the shit she's pulled, talking's not good enough. Her actions nearly killed this puppy. But throughout all this my boss has focused a blind eye in her direction. He offers myriad excuses when it comes to her. She can do no wrong in his eyes. I guarantee you that if anyone else had done this they would be immediately pulled aside, written up or fired. I myself have been literally yelled at for considerably less. For the record, I mistakenly gave the wrong formula dry food to the dogs, which he was absolutely certain would give them all diarhea. Needless to say, none of the dogs developed diareah as a result. But I never got so much as an apology for that.
I've really just had it with this person. It's so obvious she's not happy where she's at, she could care less about what she does, or the consequences of what she doesn't do. She doesn't give a shit about these animals. I can't work with someone with such little regard. I've just had it, she needs to leave. Straight out, quit or get fired... but she needs to go.
Well, there was the time she happened to mention how she "trained" puppies not to try and jump out of the top cages: by slapping them. Then there was the time she said she was refusing to handfeed a puppy who wasn't eating on his own because she "didn't have time." (she was told to MAKE time.) Or the time she failed to secure one of the cages and a pug fell out and wandered through the back storeroom before finally settling to sleep in an open locker. Luckily, the fall didn't hurt him, but it could have been much worse. How 'bout all the times she wasn't holding puppies correctly and they fell out of her hands? Or all the times she acted like it was beneath her to handfeed a puppy with a low appetite? Should I mention the trivial laziness? The art of getting by on the barest minimum effort possible? The lying when confronted about any of the above? Never mind the fact that she leaves nasty little comments in the daily log book. The latest one read "I hate you" from last week. The fact that she leaves her work undone for the next shift is nothing compared to the latest incident.
We have a maltese-bichon mix who for some reason won't eat the regular food, so I'd found a good alternative for his appetite. At the time it happened to be kitten food. When a puppy won't eat, I consider it a major sucess to find something he will take to. As always, I entered thorough notes and specific instructions in the log book. Marked down feeding times and weights every half hour because I happen to actually give a shit about these dogs. Perhaps I wrongly assumed that my notes would be read and instructions would be followed, because when I came in at my regular time yesterday morning this dog was totally crashing. I did some immediate action by giving him Enervite, some applesauce, gatorade, water... inbetween massaging to bring him back around. It took me an hour of constant attention to finally get him to where he was alert.
Later I told my boss all this and showed him my notes from the previous day, and her nearly non-existent notes the following shift, which stated nothing about this particular puppy. He said he'd talk to her about it.
Excuse me... after all the shit she's pulled, talking's not good enough. Her actions nearly killed this puppy. But throughout all this my boss has focused a blind eye in her direction. He offers myriad excuses when it comes to her. She can do no wrong in his eyes. I guarantee you that if anyone else had done this they would be immediately pulled aside, written up or fired. I myself have been literally yelled at for considerably less. For the record, I mistakenly gave the wrong formula dry food to the dogs, which he was absolutely certain would give them all diarhea. Needless to say, none of the dogs developed diareah as a result. But I never got so much as an apology for that.
I've really just had it with this person. It's so obvious she's not happy where she's at, she could care less about what she does, or the consequences of what she doesn't do. She doesn't give a shit about these animals. I can't work with someone with such little regard. I've just had it, she needs to leave. Straight out, quit or get fired... but she needs to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)