Tormenting Animals: Because We Can?

It is indeed a philosophical question -- and irrelevant to some -- whether we should be allowed to subject animals to pointless suffering. The recent killing of the majestic lion Cecil is a shocking reminder that the question is there. Another reminder is routine cruelty of the meat industry to not-so-majestic cattle and birds, whose muscle tissue is served daily on burger buns all over America. On the other hand, our friends from the religious right scream that we are all higher beings, God's creation, and not animals at all. If we cannot earn the status, let us magically award it to ourselves anyway.

Cecil has been killed by a licensed hunter, in perfect accordance with the law, though the way in which he's been killed ought to be illegal: for the last 40 hours of his life, the lion had to to put up with the sharp arrow in his flesh.

Is anyone in the whaling industry paying attention? What about cattle? The law protects them against cruelty, but the political pressure to enforce it isn't there. If we need to eat them, fine. Can  we kill them humanely, for Christ's sake?! Can we only kill what we need to? Can we learn to treat each other decently, while we are at it?

``You call my children animals!'' a priest had once screamed at the biologist Richard Dawkins. He must have heard something that Dawkins never said: that we are nothing but animals. It is up to us whether or not we act as higher beings. Either rise to the level, or shut up about not wanting to share 96% of your DNA with a chimp. Mammals are,in fact, capable of compassion. Are you?

Anti-Hillary TV Ads Are Being Tested in Labs.

In this NY Times article, Ashley Parker and Amy Chozick write of a peculiar research lab, financed by a Republican strategist. The lab is testing anti-Hillary TV ads for effectiveness. They use paid "experimental rabbits" from various voter groups.

The article remarks that "Republicans are acutely aware that early attacks labeling Mitt Romney as elitist were impossible for him to shake in 2012." That might be, but I doubt that Hillary will be effected by such attacks to the same extent. After all, Mitt Romney's message was off-the-leash capitalism, which didn't sit well with the majority of the voters.

Obama has been elected and re-elected by the economic scare, by the recession. Just as his predecessor has been re-elected by the terror scare of Sept. 11th attacks. Not to say that every election has the scare which ultimately decides the outcome. Indeed, a notable exception is the comedy of the year 2000, when W made it into the office by flipping the state of Florida -- they couldn't find a coin -- and by court decision.

One important feature that differentiates Hillary from the other side is the lack of certain attitude toward a drowning person. The GOP candidates come across as if they were telling a drowning man to calm down, take a lungfull of air, practice his strokes down there, and swim for the nearest public beach, all on his own. God forbid, they might infringe on someone's freedom by heading for a private  beach instead.

The message of self-reliance and personal responsibility is certainly a right one. I tell my kids that, by and large, they are on their own in this world.

However, coming from certain politicians, that's how the message comes across. Especially, if it is used to as an argument against affordable healthcare. So, the negative TV ads portraying a candidate as "elitist and out-of-touch" won't stick to Mrs. Clinton as much as they've stuck to Mr. Romney. It's her message that counts, really.