Answer: YES! (any sane, rational person with two good brain cells to rub together does!)
The L.A. Times blog has a follow up regarding PETA's letter to USA Network.
The comments from readers are pretty good, more against the lunatic fringe than FOR it. That's great!
If you have not sent in your comments of support to USA Network, please do so. If you have not posted a brief comment on the L.A. Times blog, go on by and do some public education.
Be brief, be factual...this is a great opportunity to connect the dots between PETA and their Rolex wearing cousin, the HSUS.
Posts
Been to the LAT, left my opinion. I was surprised to be in such a majority. The wackos usually stack the polls.
ReplyDeleteA large part of LA's mandatory spay/neuter law passed because people were afraid that their houses would be burned down if they spoke against it. I think that this fear carries over to referendums also, as even thinking what you are afraid to say causes the same fear.
ReplyDeleteThe wackos stack the polls and they make people afraid to speak to their city commissions or vote in referendums. If a person is afraid that the fanatics will burn their house down if they speak in public, that person will also be afraid to vote in referendums where their identities are fairly safe. It's classic aversion training.
ReplyDeleteWe have to have a program of recognizing and supporting ownership rights. If there was actual support for the right to fight dogs and eat them, then all of our ownership rights would be save. What we have thrown under the bus has dragged the rest of us with them. You can see this in action. They've used "fighting dogs" as an excuse to jail someone for having a doggy treadmill to train sled dogs with and this is very much intentional. Feel that pull? The people who we allow to pass laws against dogfighting deliberately connect that with innocent owners. Every law that gets passed for any allegedly humane reason gets connected with innocent owners, by the humane organizations, on purpose, with malice aforethought.