The Ojai Post

Oh, Suza, I love this story. Thank you for finding this dog a loving home with you! This is to be our first Christmas without our fur child, Sydney the Labrador, since 1994. She died on June 2, just before the other solstice. We have a house that's finally clean and smells good (yet is painfully quiet and stink-free), freedom from vet bills and dog-parenting responsibilities, but we are contemplating rescuing a Lab. We must be crazy (or heartsick).

What a dear, sweet dog Queenie was. You kind of got the feeling she might have been abused in her puppy-hood. She wasn't much interested in other dogs, she never chased cats, she was a bit cool to strangers, and she didn't play games. But her devotion to Suza was unmistakable and absolute.

Suza, The universe does truly provide. It brought a tear to my eye and a lump to my throat reading your post. Last year we lost our fur person Frankie, exactly a year later a friend showed up with a new fur lady, Frieda. It was love at first sight. She has brought so much love to our home, I don't dare bitch about the hair or that dawg smell. We spend good parts of the evening saying, ‘look at the dog’, her puppy antics are so cute! We adore her so much.
Frieda's former person had died and she had been through two other homes where the big dogs were not good family to her. Autumn, our 16 year old fur man, had been depressed since his dear friend Frankie's death. He is patient and kind to Frieda, finally coming out of his funk and our new addition to our family has been well accepted.
I truly believe it is not the family that we are born into, but the family that is given to us through love, that sustains and mutually supports us in our lives. May you, your newest addition and your other girlz continue to receive blessings. Lisa, I recommend you take two labs and call me in the morning.

Thank you, Lisa, David and Shangrilalife. It does my heart good to read your comments.

Lisa, I think there was a photo ad in the OVN last week of two beautiful labs (a brother and sister, as I recall) that need to be adopted together...

Dennis, there was the comic who offered that it is better to have a dog than a girlfriend because:
1.They like it when you leave your dirty socks and underwear laying around;
2.the later you come home, the happier they are to see you;
3.they don’t mind if you pet other dogs….etc.
4.and, more seriously, I might add that even my sweet deceased dog understood that love is not limited. Like stupidity, there is an endless amount to go around.

Suza, my comment doesn't make much sense if you deleted Leary's.
Congratulations on your new adoption.
Dennis

Oh, congratulations, Suza!

Very cool when the universe presents gifts (or gifts presents? ;-)) in this way...

Long live the Queenie! What's your new girl's name?

May your days together be merry...

Best,
Leigh

Dear other Dennis,

My apologies to you (and only you!) for deleting Leary's tired old comments about love of pets being misplaced and depriving humans.

I cannot tell you how enormously satisfying it was to delete his nonsense.

In the past I've tried to reason with him...I've challenged him to watch the DVD EARTHLINGS... I've asked him to adopt a dog or volunteer for a spay & neutor campaign ...but he'd rather throw sand in my face.

It was a great day in nature with my dogs! Honey (nick name of new Aussie) ran all over the riverbottom like a wild horse.

It was a beautiful sight!

"If you want to know what love is, get a dog!"

Thanks, Other Dennis. I was wondering what happened to my comment. It was very brief so it couldn't have been the length which got it censured.

Other Dennis, you bring up a good point which I have struggled with: the unlimited and limited nature of love.

I have come to believe that pethood is problematic for pets and humams. You obviously disagree but can treat my unpopular opinion with humor.

I agree that love is unlimited and I also believe that it is ordered. Keeping pets is out of order in the general framework of unlimited love in my opinion.

The Ojai Post is about civil discourse between those who agree and disagree. I do not agree that my post needed to be deleted but I'm not going to dispute that an author has the power to hit the delete button.

It happened to me before and reasons were given which I thought were legitimate. I don't know what the reasons were in this case. If I knew, perhaps I would agree.

DL: You got censured, for good reason, not censored.

Suza, your post #8 came in while I was writing #9.

Saying that I "throw sand in your face" is not providing reasons for deleting my comment.

Your suggestion that I do the very things I say I do not believe in is contradictory. I prefer to be consistent with my beliefs.

I respect your beliefs and am glad that you had a good day with your dog.

I just don't happen to believe that pethood is consistent with sustainable love for the earth.

If you delete this comment, I'd suggest a negotiating session with Tyler and the community at large. I don't believe in censorship unless it is reasonable and in conformity with the Post's guidelines.

Dennis Leary, the reason I deleted your comment is that you've already said what you wrote a thousand times (it's all over the Ojai Post). I am FED UP with human beings killing thousands of noble innocent dogs in shelters across the country, every single day!

The dog I adopted was a breath away from receiving a lethal injection. You have never offered a viable alternative to adopting animals. She cannot survive on her own in the wild.

My resources --and my patience--is stretched to the max. For you to repeatedly insult me and other dog rescuers by telling us that our love and compassion for animals is misplaced, is just plain over the top!

Dennis Leary, for the umpteenth time, I implore you to watch EARTHLINGS. See my review in the current issue of the Ojai/Ventura View.

DL - It's the holiday season, try and be happy for those of us who have loved a pet. Give it a rest, at least until after the new year.

Dear Dennis,

Please stop bugging our mom. She is doing a really good job feeding and taking care of all of us. Without her making us into "pets" we might be roast by now.

Lisa is right. Get into the holiday spirit and give it a rest!

And how about you give Suza a great present and watch EARTHLINGS.
Click here:
http://www.ojaipost.com/2008/03/earthlings_1.shtml

According to the U.S. Humane Society, about 6 to 8 million dogs and cats are brought into shelters every year, and about half (3-4 million) are euthanized.

Suza, did you really mean to censure me rather than censor me?

I just looked up both words. "Censure" is quite strong and different than censor. It's an official act by an authority with serious consequences. Does being an author give you that kind of power?

If you are a former teacher, you should know the dictum: bene distinguere, bene discere. Please distinguish between general principles and specific applications.

I have already answered your specific questions in your words: "a thousand times." I prefer to spend my time discussing the general principles of pethood.

If my memory serves me, I googled Earthlings without success but I will try it again soon. I intend also to look up your review.

If the criterion for censurship is saying things too often, then I'm afraid the Ojai Post had better start hitting the delete button more often.

If you feel insulted when there was no insult present, you are making something up.

Your emotional tone and personal attack on me is unwarranted. Be careful. An author's tone is a criterion that the manager of this site takes into account for retention. I don't think we want to go down that slippery slope; better to take the high ground.

I'm not a teacher but I've heard that much learning comes from repetition.

By the way, I love animals in their free and noble states.

Beautiful story, Suza. Thanks for sharing!

oh jeez, rose & tellie are back...

DL, you used the word censure initially and I called you on it. I'm not Suza. Get over it. Move on.

I just finished watching the movie "Earthlings" in its entirety. It is a very painful and powerful experience. "I see it feelingly."

The movie explains why we are so passionate about animals.

Earthlings does not go far enough in getting to the root of the problem. It started way back when patriarchal men started killing and eating animals.

Pethood is a special case of cruelty because it is sugared over with emotionalism. Pet lovers make pets their lovers. They think they are loving animals when the truth is that they are enablers, giving a pretty picture to gloss over reality.

Pet lovers may have big emotional hearts but they are often "soft in the head." Their close attachment to pets detaches them from their intelligence as femina sapiens.

Pethood is the soft side of the same coin as the hardcore side of animal cruelty.

Enslaving an animal, putting a collar on its neck and shooting them up with chemicals is specism. Practically all human diseases have come from improper contact with animals. The animals do take their revenge by killing us but we are too stupid to see it.

The movie betrays its lack of intelligence by claiming that animals are needed for companionship. Nonsense. Humans are meant to companion all other humans.

Ojai can be the leader by being the first non-pet community.

This is just my opinion. I could be wrong. But to understand my view, you have to take into account the whole of my writing. There are many other facets involved, especially sexuality.

I speak the truth as I see it. You can censor or censure me but truth will always be truth. The only way to tell is to discuss the matter rationally in a competent community of peers.

The only rationale that Suza has offered concerning my general theory is that I've said it before. That is very weak and does not hold water. Her arguments are mostly ad hominem and emotional, and that's water under the dam. She also distracts from the core issue by focusing on what to do with the unwanted animals, which I've already answered but which she apparently does not agree with or does not want to hear.

If we're serious about saving animals and the earth and ourselves, we need to address this issue with our femina sapiens intelligence.

We need to see truthfully with the mind and true feeling will follow naturally.

Earthlings makes my point but is dishonest in avoiding the politically incorrect discussion of pethood itself. To its credit, it did mention the point in a half sentence.

More is needed or we are doomed like the animals we kill and eat. As Tolstoy said: when you have slaughterhouses, you have battlefields.

I would add that when you have pets, you have battlefields; although that truth is obscured with multiple layers of human neuroses and self-deception.

Neuroses and deception have useful purposes at certain levels of development. Ojaians need to grow up and reclaim their femina sapiens natures. Anything less is insapiens and makes saps of us and the animals.

It's too late to play Miss Nice Girl. The world hangs in the balance by a thread. It could go either way and who knows which one of us will determine its fate by our consciousness and choice?

Dennis, you got censured AND censored.

And I love it when you start telling us what the rules are around here. Be sure to give us the complete list, o.k.? Along with the punishments you intend to mete out to the violators.

Thanks for pointing out that I used the word censure when I meant censor. But that does not explain why Suza in comment 10 says she censured me, not censored me. I was responding to her use of censure.

As far as getting over it, what is the "it" supposed to refer to? I don't want to get over the killing of animals. It's a crime against humanity.

LS suggests I wait until the next year. Interesting because according to the calendar that I use, today is the first day of the year, after the winter solstice when the sun rises and starts a new year.

I know you're tired of me and I'm irritating as hell. But have compassion. Imagine how it is to live with me all the time like I do.

Wait. This is getting confusing. Yah Tillie posted as Suza? Isn't that against the rules? So who wrote the review in the View? Is Suza going to stand for someone posting in her name? Anyway, thanks Tillie for the link to Earthlings.

Talk about "Synchronicity." Amazing how things come together.

Dog spirit, the rules are cited below. I don't tell you the rules; they're put there by the manager.

I like this one: "Please treat fellow commenters with civility and respect, as if you were engaging in person." I'd love to converse with you in person but if you are a dog or a spirit, it will take some practice.

Apparently Tillie posted in Suza's name. Check this rule: "You also agree not to impersonate any regular authors or commenters..." In your case, if you are not in fact a dog spirit, are you an impersonator, albeit an anonymous one?

Arf!! Arf!!

Arf-Arf!!

Aroooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!

I needed that. You made me laugh. I'm entirely too serious at times.

Have to admit that I never quite understood the domesticated animal culture either. Always seemed like it played into that part of the human being that needs to be in control of another sentient being. I could see the need for hunting dogs when/if our ancestors needed help tracking or killing wild animals for food, yet for purely entertainment and so called unconditional love it does seem like there is a human need being fulfilled that gives a sense of false intimacy. to project on a domestic animal that they are actually loving you when in reality they are probably just driven by their instincts for food seems a bit naive. It is tragic that there are so many animals in shelters and the solution is challenging, however, if we stopped producing so many domestic animals there would be fewer to be concerned aboout.

good story

In Comment #22, Dennis Leary wrote:

"But that does not explain why Suza in comment 10 says she censured me, not censored me. I was responding to her use of censure."

Comment #10 was by "Thanks Suza."

The real Suza never censored or censured you. She exercised her author's privilige and deleted your comment.

Fine, DL, you choose to be disrespectful, I choose not to read your comments anymore.

Censorship: The control of speech and other forms of human expression.

Censure: Censure is a process by which a formal reprimand is issued to an individual by an authoritative body. In a deliberative assembly, a motion to censure is used.

Main Entry: cen·sor

Function: noun

Etymology: Latin, Roman magistrate, from censēre to give as one's opinion, assess; perhaps akin to Sanskrit śaṁsati he praises

Date: 1526

1: a person who supervises conduct and morals: as a: an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter b: an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful

2: one of two magistrates of early Rome acting as census takers, assessors, and inspectors of morals and conduct

3: a hypothetical psychic agency that represses unacceptable notions before they reach consciousness

All rightie, now that I've researched the words "censor" and "censure," it appears that in exercising author's privilige to delete items, I did a dash of each.

Thanks to "Thanks Suza"!
and
Thanks to "Dog Spirit"!

DL, We appreciate that you watched EARTHLINGS in it's entirety.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from
Tillie
Rosie
Mr. Orange,
Princess Pricilla
Leo the Lion
Ginger
Blue Eyes
Green Eyes
Trixie
Beau
Faccia
Honey
and the late
Pierre
Tiny Cat
Moussie
Queenie
Chloe
Penny
Muffie
Rosie#1
and other creatures great and small.

Recommended Reading:
"The Pig Who Sang to the Moon," by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson

This Post is dedicated to the late Beatrice Wood who taught me that "Animals love their life as much as you do..."

DL,I find it abominable that in this time of peace and love somebody could rip to shreds the joys, loves, and bonds between humans and animals. There are truly some evil people in the world. Anybody that knows the love and bonding with an animal could never write such heinous remarks. I hope to God you've never owned an animal to abuse or you never will own one. It is heartless, cruel insensitive people like you that destroy love, caring, compassion, joy and pass it on. Suza may you find the love, peace, joy and happiness you and darling Queenie may have this Xmas and always!

What a shame, he has pretty much ruined this whole thread.

DL,

The patriarchy has a death grip on your consciousness when it comes your view of animals.

The leading women writers in the field of consciousness are well known for their relationships with animals.

For example, visit the web site of Jean Houston, Ph.D., author of "Mystical Dogs: Animals as Guides to Our Inner Lives."
http://www.jeanhouston.org/index.html

The animal advocate and spiritual activist Andrew Harvey writes:

"This brave, generous, passionate book will confirm in their truth, those who love animals and know them to be wise and holy. And it will awaken all those who are not yet aware to the miraculous companionship nature has to offer all those willing to risk the adventure."

Ya know...

I know we all have our own capacities for hypocrisy, I get that.

But I went a-wandering to see where else this ant-pet argument of Dennis' might be flourishing, and found it, to my surprise, emanating from PETA, among other places.

They are in the business of animal welfare, and have apparently decided that it's against animals best interests to have any relationships with humans. (In spite of simultaneously pitching books written by their director with titles like," 150 Ways to Get Your Cat to Adore You.")

And apparently these so-called animal welfare experts are SO committed to animal care that they have anywhere between an 85 and 94 percent kill rate on domestic animals they rescue. (And were found in Maryland, if memory serves, ever so respectfully dumping the bodies of some of those animals in dumpsters.)

To "Don't Get it Either" -- yup, you're right, you don't get it!

My relationship with my animals (six at the moment -- two horses, two cats, two dogs) is NOT about being in control of another sentient being. With my cats, control is a laughable concept even if I wanted to; my dogs find me a quite a good servant, thank you; and with my horses, I'm actually doing a great deal of work experimenting with how to engage with an animal ten times my size by building a willing an open partnership, where no one claims dominance, but instead leadership is constantly shifting back and forth between us, with extraordinary results.

And I find your assumption that animals can't possibly love humans both laughable and saddening - obviously, you've never had this experience.

And it distresses me because it is a particularly nasty form of dominion and speciesism -- the assumption that animals aren't capable of feeling emotions but are purely driven by instinct. That they are "dumb" animals, who's only drives are to eat and procreate.

Trust me, love is as deep a need for any animal that I've spent time with as food has been. As one very small example, my two instinct-driven horses will walk away from their dinner virtually every time I show up to play with them after their evening hay has arrived...it's their choice, and they're clear about it.

Did you know that horses and dogs dream? Did you know that animals have complicated language comprehension and development? (Look up the studies that were done with praire dog communities a few years back, for example.) Did you know that a few years ago in Africa when several herds of elephants became aggressive because people were pushing into their territory, elephants all over Africa became similarly aggressive? Did you know that any number of bird species mate for life?

Have you ever seen a cat grieve because her feline companion died? Or a dog grieve because he's lost his human family? I have.

Engaging with and loving animals offer human beings extraordinary glimpses into the intelligence and power of this planet and universe that we won't find sitting in our own, self-absorbed heads. The farther we get in understanding how animals think and feel, the more we are realizing that they aren't that different than us -- they may have some different capabilities and strengths, but they also have abilities we can only dream of. And we have much to learn from them.

So, while you may have never loved a dog or had a dog love you, don't assume that's the way of the world. There's no false intimacy there when you find it.

Best,
Leigh

Well, I guess a little spell checking/proofing wouldn't have been amiss in that last post! Sorry! :-)

Like...my horses are ten times my weight, not my size (those are some DURN BIG horses!)...LOL!

...and other silly little grammatical errors...

Ah well...once again my imperfections rise up to throw their arms around me...we have such an intimate relationship!

Leigh

PS: Suza, I'm really sorry that your sharing of your joy in finding your new friend got sullied by all of this. I realize that we have different opinions, but being mindful of each others' feelings is important -- and it's not particularly kind to respond to someone's excitement about a new animal in their lives with the suggestion that all pets be obliterated from the planet...insensitive, at the very least.

Thanks for the clarification regarding comment 10. I missed the "Thanks Suza" and mistook it for Suza. I was wrong on that and it led to some confusion. This business of using pseudonyms is beyond confusing. Like the manager said: "Please treat fellow comenters...as if you were engaging in person." It's much easier if I know who the person is.

I think Suza is enough of a grown up woman to not let my opinion spoil her Christmas.

The above comments contain much emotion and little emotional intelligence in my opinion. I disagree that I am being disrespectful in expressing my views. If difference of opinion is a reason for censorship, then the OP should retire from the field.

The reason that I bring up the issue of pethood is my deep love for animals. I communicate with them and they with me. I am bringing a message from them, especially the free ones that are left. Some of you get different messages which illustrates the point made above that at least half of the mix is projection. I want to be free and that's why I value free animals.

Earthlings indicates that something is terribly wrong. The free animals are giving me a strong message and I'm their messenger.

If you choose a different course of action, I respect your choice. But what is your solution to the problems that Earthlings raises? More and more shelters and adoptions?

The free animals have a solution and that is to free all the animals from human ignorance, arrogance and murder in the name of love.

The best Christmas gift we could give to the world would be to free the animals from all forms of slavery, including pethood.

Don't let your emotionalism get in the way of your emotional intelligence, Ojai.

It would take several books to scratch the surface of this subject. We owe a debt of gratitude to Suza for bringing up the topic.

Suza, thank you for sharing so eloquently your rescue of Honey and your patience with the extremely patriarchal DL. I am grateful for your presence in Ojai and on the Ojai Post. Your big heart and willingness to communicate are inspirational to me.

It has become clear to me - and apparently 90% of those who are commenting here - that DL's style, philosophy and tone all come from an authoritarian patriarchal mindset. Over the years, I have read comments by DL praising the feminine (matriarchy) and condemning the masculine (patriarchy). It's become blatantly obvious, to this student of life, that Dennis is actually at war with his own nature. On a deep level, DL's heart is closed. His ancient trademark grimace can be read in the lines on his face. His strained smiles rarely reach his eyes. I have tremendous compassion for you DL- living in a self-imposed kennel of suffering is the path of a martyr and demonstrates your self loathing has become systemic. When you truly love your self, you will begin to see and accept your faults as beauty and will no longer project them into the abstractions that you rail against. When you truly love your self you will be able to have empathy and love for all living beings. I do not think you have ruined this thread. You are deeply wounded and need help just like these dogs on death row. Aren't we all on death row? You see, all we have is each other. When you truly love your self you will be able to share it with all living beings. Nothing feels better.

In the spirit of Christmas, my thanks to Mahatma Blondie.

I really don't know what else to say.

I'm left wondering if DL read Comment #35.

Let me try once more to respond to this:

"But what is your solution to the problems that Earthlings raises? More and more shelters and adoptions?"

Dear DL, I've already explained many times that all the animals I've adopted are spayed and neutered.

I've already mentioned that every year 5-6 thousand cats and dogs enter the Ventura County shelters and 2-3 thousand are euthanized.

The people who rescued my dog work tirelessly to raise public awareness of the pet over-population problem and the cycle of breeding that leads to the killing of "pets".

DL, even if I agreed with you that "pethood" is a form of "slavery," that would not solve the problem of finding a humane solution for the animals already born.

The least we can all do is be aware of the immense suffering and injustice in this world.

Everything is connected.

I've just finished reviewing a pre publication copy of a new book about child soldiers, "First Kill Your Family."

It is a firsthand account of how children are ordered to kill their own parents, or be killed themselves!

We are the lucky ones on the Planet who are in the fortunate position to ease the suffering of other Earthlings.

Hi Leigh,

I laughed when I read the part about your horse being ten times your size! It's funny even after you corrected it!

Sometime let's discuss the concern you raise about PETA. I believe they have the animals best interest at heart.

Hey Suza:

Some times they feel that big! (Especially when they step on my feet!)

I'd be happy to talk PETA with you -- I have been supportive of a lot of what they're tried to do, but was really appalled by some of the things I've read about their handling of domestic animals.

I actually think they do have good intentions (along with a genius for self promotion), but the more I've read about them the more I felt about them the way I feel about many fundamentalists -- regardless of ideology -- that they are caught in the supremacy of their own beliefs and want to shape the world according to those fairly radical beliefs -- and I was genuinely offended by the rhetoric about abolishing pet ownership and their euthanasia practices on one hand and marketing pet books on the other, among other things...

My own sense, rightly or wrongly, is that they've done some really valuable work, but I they've gotten caught in their own thinking...

Some of their rhetoric against pets:

"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation." Ingrid Newkirk

"As John Bryant has written in his book Fettered Kingdoms, they [pets] are like slaves, even if well-kept slaves." --PeTA's Statement on Companion Animals.

"In a perfect world, all other than human animals would be free of human interference, and dogs and cats would be part of the ecological scheme." --PeTA's Statement on Companion Animals.

"The bottom line is that people don't have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats ... If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind." Ingrid Newkirk

I was really surprised to see this, along with the reported euthanasia practices -- check out Wikipedia for more info on this. I found it really disturbing.

But in the meantime, merry Christmas and enjoy your new girl!

Best,
Leigh

Hi Leigh,

I went to PETA's website to find out what their stated position is on pets. I think their position is a little more sensible and nuanced than the impression you got from Wikipedia. Their main concern is not with keeping pets that are properly cared for, but rather the immense suffering that results as a by-product of the general practice of keeping pets.....

Anyway, for purposes of clear discussion, I have copied below PETA's entire statement of policy on pets. Please see especially their last paragraph:

We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of "pet keeping"—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as "pets"—never existed. The international pastime of domesticating animals has created an overpopulation crisis; as a result, millions of unwanted animals are destroyed every year as "surplus." This selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them causes immeasurable suffering, which results from manipulating their breeding, selling or giving them away casually, and depriving them of the opportunity to engage in their natural behavior. Their lives are restricted to human homes where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink, and even urinate when humans allow them to.

Because domesticated animals retain many of their basic instincts and drives but are not able to survive on their own in the wild, dogs, cats, or birds, whose strongest desire is to be free, must be confined to a house, yard, or cage for their own safety.

This is a "best case" scenario. The truth is that millions of dogs spend their lives outside on heavy chains in all weather extremes, or they are kept locked up in tiny chain-link pens from which they can only watch the world go by. Millions more are confined to filthy wire cages in puppy mills—forced to churn out litter after litter until they wear out, at which time they are killed or dumped at the local animal shelter. Even in "good" homes, cats must relieve themselves in dirty litterboxes and often have their digits removed by "declawing," and dogs often have to drink water that has sat around for days, are hurried along on their walks, and are yelled at to get off the furniture or be quiet.

Most compassionate people never think that someone would throw a litter of kittens out the window of a moving car, and they would certainly be shocked by PETA's inches-thick files on cases of dogs and cats who have been shot with arrows, blown up with firecrackers, doused in gasoline and set on fire, cooked in microwave ovens, used as "bait" in dogfights, tortured in satanic rituals, beaten with baseball bats by bored kids, dragged behind cars to "teach them a lesson" for running away, or bound in duct tape to silence their barking. Abuses such as these happen to many animals every day.

Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and "set them free." What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their human companions aren't home) from pounds or shelters—never from pet shops or breeders—thereby reducing suffering in the world.

Hi Leigh,

I see that David has posted something as I was writing this, so I'll post what's on my mind and comment more another time, after I read what he wrote.

One problem I see with dogs as "pets" is that it's almost impossible for human beings to give dogs enough exercise walking them on a leash.

Plus humans have a different agenda when walking (or running). Dogs want to sniff and smell and explore and interact with their own kind.

These last few days I took my new dog, (still nicknamed "Honey") along with three other dogs out in the riverbottom nd other places where they can run and play free to their heart's content.

Honey was like a wild horse set free!

She went crazy with joy when she realized she was free!

She ran and ran and ran up and down trails, under bushes...she galloped in circles like a colt...

At one point she saw two other dogs in the distance. She got so excited that she ran and ran toward them, and climbed up a hillside of boulders to meet them.

They were off-leash and I could tell that the two women walking the dogs were OK with my dog's exuberance and curiosity.

After all the dogs had sniffed each other, Honey took off again and ran straigh back into my arms.

The problem as I see it is not "pets" per se, but the way we humans interact with them, in part due to circumstances like traffic (making colars and leashes a necessity), living in apartments, working all day and leaving a dog alone bored to tears in the backyard, etc.

This is all off the top of my head...I so appreciate your interest and thoughtfullness. It is a delight to "converse" with you and see things from another perspective.

I have Ingrid Newkirk's book, FREE THE ANIMALS! and dozens of other titles on this subject, so I look forward to this dialogue with you and anyone else who wants to chime in.

WOW!

David, thank you from the bottom of my heart for posting this.

I am going to renew my PETA membership!

Speaking up for free animals is my Christmas gift to them and to myself who is in part an animal.

The long term solution is to free all animals and thereby free human beings to love themselves and have their needs met by their own kind.

The short term solution to unwanted animals may be euthanasia, neutering, spaying or adoption but it will be self-defeating unless the long term solution is clearly understood and sought. The choice between euthanasia and adoption may be a tough one for humans who assume the animals in question want the same thing as they do. But don't be so sure. Many animals would prefer a quick and easy passing into the arms of Mother Nature than a life of servitude and loss of dignity under humanhood. As for having your organs cut, ask yourself how you would like it. Death may be preferable for many of them.

I have read all the comments.

Suza's description of free animals should be their normal and constant condition of life.

I am a recovering patriarch. Part of my recovery is to stop enslaving animals in any way I can and to speak up on their behalf as I have done.

Animals are my guides in many ways as they were for the ancients but only if they are themselves free to be themselves.

Christmas is about love and love is restoring the original love order with its freedom within love ordained borders.

Thanks to all for this informative discussion.

hey Dennis,

Where did you ever get the idea that pets are enslaved?

That false assumption seems to be the foundation on which your whole huge anti-pet philosophy is created.

Have you ever actually lived with a dog or a cat? If so, you will see that they are not in fact enslaved, and they don't regard themselves as enslaved. Cats come and go as they please, and dogs may be confined for their own welfare but you may be quite certain that most of them love their homes and would not dream of leaving it beyond the occasional excursion.

Your philosophy that pets are enslaved is reminiscent of Jock's philosophy that there is a secret government ruling the world, and MT's philosophy that a few families control all the money. All are basically paranoid delusions, and you three use the Ojai Post continuously to try to spread your delusions.

Some pets are probably enslaved, but most are not in the slightest. Why don't you confront that fact? It is a very simple fact, and if you could just come into contact with it you might free yourself from a lot of delusion. Who knows, then it might spread to your paranoid delusional friends Jock and MT.

You say you communicate with animals. Why don't you visit some actual, factual pets and ask them if they feel enslaved? Ask them specifically if they would leave their owners if they could, o.k.? Then report back to us what they say, o.k.? You might find it refreshing to get into contact with some actual facts for a change.

Hi David and Suza!

Thanks so much for writing back to me about PETA.

I had a long post going, but decided that I was rambling, even for me! :-)

So here's the short version...

I respect a lot of what PETA has done on behalf of animals, but based on a lot of digging online from a variety of sources, I have some deep disagreements with their ideas about companion animals and their euthanasia policies. (And I must admit I find the gaps between their stated mission and Newkirk's commentary about pets as slaves discomfiting...)

For me, the whole issue of how animals and people interact is a complicated one -- even about eating meat, which I do -- which gets even more complicated for me as I read some of the cutting edge research on intelligence in plants and the similarities between their neurobiology and human neurobiology...(heck, I even have a buddy who's an electrical engineer who believes electricity has intelligence as well...).

I think we live in a complicated dance of life and death, and the circles of consumption aren't simple...

But I think that companion animals can be, for both animals and humans, gateways for one another into better understanding and engagement. I think in some ways we benefit more because I think that animals have so much to teach us (and I'm guessing that in the next 50 years, we'll discover more about what plants have to teach us, too).

Stopping now -- step away from the computer, Leigh! -- but thanks for chatting!

And we can agree to disagree about PETA...that's cool, too.

All the best,
Leigh

David,

Slavery refers to a state of servitude. Its opposite is freedom and self determination.

Pets are owned by humans. If not, a person could come and take your pet from you. You may quibble with the term "enslaved," as with any word. The confederate states argued that they treated their slaves better than the North did their factory workers. In many cases that was true but it was the principle that was at stake.

I am arguing for the principle of freedom for all species.

A free animal does not depend on humans for food, shelter, companionship or survival. As a species they are not in servitude; they are free and self determined.

If we have any credible love for animals or ourselves, we will admit there is a horrible problem. Watch "Earthlings" if you have not. For every problem there is a solution unless you believe in strict fate or chaos; or if you really don't care about the sufferings of others who live outside of relatively comfortable Ojai.

I have offered a solution, both long and short term. I can't keep repeating it here.

You say my philosophy rests on my idea of slavery. This is not true. The slavery slant is but one small part of it. If someone wants to really explore my full philosophy including animals, I'd be happy to sit down personally and discuss it. But if no one here wants to hear it, why bother? I bother for the one or two out there who may be interested in my point of view.

Your mindset is also quite limited in regard to MT and JD. You accuse them and me of paranoid delusions. You avoid looking into the vast research they have done which leads them to their conclusions which in my opinion are much more reality based than are yours. I am an RN who worked in psychiatric nursing for many years. What are your credentials for offering the diagnosis you did?

I am happy that you have responded. It enables me to look again at what I have said for mistakes. Although I disagree with you, we all need to talk with each other.

Some slaves become conditioned to love their masters because the alternative is too threatening. This would be the case with practically all pets although there are exceptions. I live with one dog who is obviously angry at humans. If a pet fails to learn obedience to his or her master or mistress, well, you can imagine what might happen.

As for personal contact with animals, I do live with three dogs and four cats courtesy of my landlord. My ex also had pets. I also deal with free animals, particularly gophers. They tell me that I am essentially correct; that they would prefer to be free with their own kind but understand the difficulties because of human needs for love.

It's a tough situation and tough love is what is needed. Love demands a solution. If you don't have one then at least consider the ones offered by those who do.

You are wrong when you assert I use the Ojai Post to "spread my delusions." I use the OP because it is in Ojai. It is using the hospitality of Ojai herself and should be proud to gave a voice to all Ojaians even if they live in Rome. I do not agree with the censorship that seems to be creeping into the Post lately. That is not the way Ojai treats the Post.

Your comments and many of those who share your frame of reference are for censorship if not censurship. I have noticed in myself lately that I've become somewhat fearful that I will go the way of JD if I speak with too much freedom. I believe I am following the guidelines but so did Jock. From what I can gather, JD did not violate any of the rules stated below but he did not have the right "tone." In other words, somebody did not like him and if may not have been Tyler.

David, if you were an author like Suza or Devorah, would you delete my comments? Devorah offered a rationale for what she did which I think was reasonable. So far the only thing I have heard from Suza other than a lot of emotional ad hominems is that I said it before.

As we speak there are milllions of animals suffering and dying because we humans can't get our act together. And that is not considering the impact animal abuse has on humans themselves.

In all this discussion, I still have not heard one reason for pethood that will stand up to the scrutiny and standard of real love. All the emotional rationalization I believe proves my point that improper animal to human contact dulls the human capacity for intelligence which is supposed to be our defining characteristic.

OK, DL, I see the light.

First thing tomorrow morning I'm gonna take all my pets out to the boonies and leave them there to return to the wild.

And while we're at it, let's drop you off in the boonies too.

A free man "does not depend on humans for food, shelter, companionship or survival."

Dennis, I have gone to considerable lengths to expose the falseness of the so-called "research" presented here by Jock. Let's not revisit that. Also, you are mis-characterizing what happened to him -- he got put on hiatus as an Author, but not as a commenter. He is still free to post whatever comments he likes.

As for pethood, I am afraid you are still dealing with abstractions, which is where your paranoid delusions get a foothold. I asked you to deal concretely with some actual specific animals. Let's start with cats, o.k.? Tell me about a cat you know, one that is free to come and go as it pleases, as most cats are. Ask that cat if it would like to leave its home and fend for itself in the wild. If it says yes, it would like to do so, ask it what on earth is stopping it, since it is free to come and go as it likes. Please report back to us the specific factual conversation with an actual cat, o.k.? I am hoping if we stick to facts we can find common ground.

David,

You have a knack for reducing the discussion to one little box which you think you can control. It's called controlling the terms of the debate.

The solution to the problem of animal suffering requires a much greater context than you can manage. Without that context and willingness to go there, you won't hear a word I say.

The greater context of JD's "hiatus" is not about whether he is an author or not. It's not even about his "research." It's about freedom of expression on a public site vs. the serious reasons necessary to restrict that right, especially when he has not violated any of the rules except the unwritten one about having the politically correct "tone."

You reduce the discussion of animal abuse to a specific example, claiming that my paranoid delusions get a foothold in my abstractions. OK, I'll play along in the box you've provided. I have a specific cat in mind. I ask him if he would like to be free and rejoin cats in the wild. He says no because it's too dangerous for him, conditioned as he his now by life with humans. So what does that prove other than the cat has good common sense? It doesn't speak at all the issue of pethood as a subset of animal abuse.
_____________

Mahatma Blondie,

I don't dispute being a patriarch. I am attempting to recover. The results so far are mixed.

I dispute some of your observations. I noted that you and David both referred to "abstractions" as a cause of trouble. They may be a problem for animal lovers when the premises of pethood are questioned but they are not for me. Love is my central abstraction which does not mean it precludes experience in other areas.

I do not agree with your belief that I do not love myself. For all my patriarchal deficits, I do love myself. I especially like myself for waking up after 69 years. You dispute that too but so what? We've each expressed ourself.

You also made an arresting comment about our all being on death row like many dogs. Of course we are all on death row if you mean recycling the physical body. But there is something about the tone of that remark that does not ring true and it may have to do with not claiming the fullness of our humanity due to misplaced pet love.

Euthanasia of unwanted animals could be a loving act with dignity, not a death row experience, if done in the context of freeing all animals. It illustrates the vast difference between humans and animals. If you are too co-dependent with pets, you will have difficulty with abstractions which allow you to take beneficial actions.

I disagree with your idea of matriarchy. One of patriarchy's great lies is that matriarchy preceded patriarchy which lets patriarchy off; they claim they are just reacting to matriarchy. I believe there was no such thing as matriarchy until after patriarchy. As usual, patriarchy rewrites the pre-patriarchal love culture from its power perspective.

You make many interesting points, too many to respond to. Yes, I love all beings but unless I make proper distinctions as Nature does, I will end up causing the very suffering I say I want to prevent. Such is the case with pethood.

The problem may indeed be with some abstractions. But the further question is where do these ideas come from. Many modern psychologists claim the problem arises in the unconscious or collective unconscious. If so, there may be things about pethood that we keep carefully concealed from our consciousness.

If 90% of commenters feel as you do toward my abstractions on pethood, do you think there might be some denial going on? If there is no unconscious blocking, where is the preponderance of rational argument for pethood? I have heard none so far except emotional need states like companionship (which Earthlings said in passing). To me seeking companionship with animals is indeed misplaced love which should be going to other humans and has a clear unconscious component.

Thanks to all for this interesting discussion.

Dennis, I don't know how to respond to your complaint about people not adequately defending pet stewardship (and I consider myself a steward and family member to my pets, not an owner) standing up "to the scrutiny and standard of real love."

I don't know what you mean by "real love." Suza speaks with great love and emotion for her animals, as have others of us here. How does that not reflect "real love?"

Beyond that, I fear that your construct of the historical ramifications of people's interactions with animals is inaccurate. You spoke in a post earlier about hunting by "patriarchal man" being one of the places that we've gone wrong...

Are you aware that new archaeological research strongly suggests that women were hunters as much as men -- that in Paleolithic culture, the image of the spear-wielding man and berry collecting woman exists far more as a projection of male archaeologists' fantasies about the "manly-manness" of early man? In all likelihood, given current research, the big animal meat that was eaten by humans of this period were animals who'd died of natural causes, and humans shared those remains with other scavengers. Archaeology suggests that the majority of hunting was done with nets and snares -- something that even in contemporary hunter/gatherer cultures is done by entire communities.

Please look at
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n4_v19/ai_n27519123/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1

(just add an http://)

for a very interesting article about archaeology done on a Paleolithic site -- and a site, by the way, that versions of the so-called "Venus" figures have been found. Archaeological evidence suggests very strongly that this was not a patriarchal culture, and, in fact, has moved forward theories about women's status and power in those communities.

Beyond that, recent research suggests that females hunt in other primate species -- chimps, using spears, and bonobo's (in which females are higher in social status than males).

I'm guessing, since I've not heard your theories on femina sapiens, that you have bought into some of the fantasies about women being nurturers, men being aggressors. Whether in DNA gender identity research or archaeology, this assumption is increasingly being shattered.

And speaking of DNA research, did you know that scientists have found fossilized remains of domesticated dogs that are over 37,000 years old, but that DNA evidence suggests that the relationship between dogs and humans actually may be even older than that -- even 100,000 years or longer?

This predates a Paleolithic site like the one researched in the article I mentioned above by a LOT of years-- this site is estimated to be 26,000 years old.

Ultimately, though, I feel sorrow that you have such a strong resistance to understanding that humans and other animals -- for we are animals, too -- can bring each other extraordinary things by developing friendships.

And I'm trying hard not to sputter in such rage about your contention that "improper animal to human contact dulls the human capacity for intelligence which is supposed to be our defining characteristic" that I'm overtly rude to you.

But, good heavens, man, where'd you pull that from!? You've managed to insult animals and people who love them in one tight phrase!

Beyond that, I'm pretty pleased with my intelligence, thank you. And I can tell you from a lifetime of experience with animals, my intelligence, my compassion, my empathy, my imagination, and my ability to both give and receive love has benefited from my interactions with them in ways not even touched on by interactions with other humans. (They're cool, too, but because we all have strong similarities, there are some things they can teach me and some things they can't.)

Ultimately, though, I feel sad for you -- you have obviously not had an opportunity or an opening in your own psyche to invite the love of an animal. And in my experience, that is earned love -- not the tragic, twisted psychology of a slave -- and is one of the most grace-filled experiences that a human being can encounter.

Best,
Leigh

Thank you, Leigh, for your thoughtful comment. I just noticed it as I was preparing to close up for the night. I look forward to responding to your "intelligence," as you put it. I'll probably get to it tomorrow morning or if that is not possible, as early as I can.

Dennis,
I await your next post with baited breath, oops my anima is showing. Instead I may skip all of this and go run with the wolves. I'll take Frieda and Autumn with me and we shall be our own pack.

Leigh, thank you, once again, for your comments.

It is an act of love to write with such grace, patience and intelligence.

As I type this one cat sits on my lap, another by the computer, one on top of a stack of books... and one deep in a basket... dogs sleeping on yoga mats and on the bed... Soon a family of raccoons will come by for a snack...one evening the raccoons woke up the pigs... when I looked out the kitchen door Tillie, my black pot-bellied pig, looking like a wild jungle creature in the moonlight, four young rambuncious raccoons, their mother, a possum with a sweet heart face, AND a spunky skunk with it's tail high up in the air, were all eating cat kibbles together right in front of my kitchen door.

The raccoons and some of the possums know me, but the skunk was a new visitor. I stood stone still, just a few feet away... transfixed by this inter species gathering!

Good night Shangrilalife, Frieda and Autumn...

DL,

Here's a direct link to the article in Leigh's Comment. Don't want you to miss it!

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n4_v19/ai_n27519123/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1

"And speaking of DNA research, did you know that scientists have found fossilized remains of domesticated dogs that are over 37,000 years old, but that DNA evidence suggests that the relationship between dogs and humans actually may be even older than that -- even 100,000 years or longer?"

Dennis,

I understand that when you are lost in abstractions, sticking to facts feels like getting stuck in a little box.

Another of your abstractions is the concept of "owner" as applied to pets. Since pets are "owned", you reason, they must be slaves. But this abstract logic does a kind of violence to the living actuality of most dogs and cats.

I am glad you had the patience to talk to a particular cat and find out what he or she had to say about all this. I recommend talking to several more. Take your time and relate to them. Let them get on your lap and purr and knead your stomach while you explain to them that they are enslaved, and find out what they think it.

Good morning, Ojaians from around this O globe High. Thanks for the comments, especially for the link provided by PS. I just finished reading the very interesting and informative article. Thanks to Leigh for providing the reference.

I woke this morning with the first gray light of dawn. I sleep outside in a normal bed. I mention this for a reason as you will see. The temperature was 31 degrees.

I went to sleep last night with this topic on my mind. I was alert to clues that might come. I had no recoverable dreams which is OK because dreams are tricky and can be distracting. Lying in bed under the fading stars, I noticed the sounds. First I heard the faint who-whoing of an owl. Then the barking a dog which I've come to know. He or she sometimes barks for hours on end. I live in the country and the dog is at a fair distance so it is not upsetting to me. My interpretation is that this particular dog is confined and is disturbed; sometimes drawing in the barking of other distant dogs. Then I heard the crowing of a far-off rooster.

The owl connected me to one of my earliest childhood memories where I was cutting out from wood and coloring an owl in the basement when my mother called from upstairs to stop and come up for dinner. I have a one foot wooden carved statuette of an owl on my motorhome four feet from where I sleep. The real life owl and the artifacts were giving me a message which I need not go into here.

The disturbed dog is also communicating to me as is the rooster. What I want to point out that is that there is a distinct difference in the quality of sound and communication from the wild owl and the domesticated dog and rooster. Bear that in mind in the discussion that follows.

Near my motorhome is a shrine that I built last year about this time from piles of earth that happened to be there. At the time I was reading literature about the womam focal cultures and their shrines. I wanted to tap into that culture.

I stopped at the shrine and kissed a red stone which is more or less shaped like a triangle and reminds me of a womam's heart shaped vulva. The stone also represents to me the clitoris and penis which I conflate to "clitenis." Just after that I noticed one of the stone plaques which read "passion."

I share this to give you some inkling of my epistemology or method of knowing.

I then proceeded to come over to this big house where I am now with my son's MacBook. I put on a pot of barley and proceeded to do what I am doing now. It was about 7 AM when I started and is now nearly an hour later. There is no heat in this house so I am dressed to the hilt and am quite comfortable except for my fingers which are stiff with the cold. I mention this because it helps my connection with animals who also live out in the cold albeit with a coat of fur rather than two winter jackets, a t shirt, two sweat shirts and a sweater.

Where to start? How do I focus and not end up writing a book? Actually I have written a book and am in the process of typing it online with a running commentary that is turning out to be much longer than the book.

Let's start with femina sapiens since Leigh mentioned that term.

According to gene studies, our common mother appeared in East Africa sometime between 150,000 and 300,000 years ago. She is called Mitochondrial Eve or African Eve or the mythical Eve from the Garden of Eden story. A couple of patriarchal males assign the 150,000 date and a feminist womam says 300,000. I trust the womam more than the men but let's say she appeared sometime between those dates.

As alluded to in the linked article, there has been massive prejudice in science due to the patriarchal mindset of our culture but I am happy to see an article like this which indicates some of that is melting. But bear in mind that we all live under the lies of patriarchal brainwashing and it's going to impact how we see an issue like pethood.

I don't know of anyone else who questions pethood like I do. If someone warms even a little bit to my views as happened early in this thread, the person is blasted by gatekeepers of the cultural norm and the person usually retires to observing only.

The other problem is science itself which is hardly objective, funded as it is by patriarchal sources. The recent studies such as this one are encouraging but remember we always have "recent studies" many of which are contradicted by more "recent studies."

In the context of eons, femina sapiens "appeared" suddenly. Now this is explained by patriarchal evolutionists as part of their theory of natural selection and survival of the fittest. I don't think their "theory" holds much water but that is the reigning paradigm we operate under today.

Patriarchal science calls this new species "homo" sapiens. Any idea why? Does anyone else see a disguised Father Freud Penisology lurking in the shadows? Patri-archy means literally "Father-first principle" which is a euphemistic way of saying "Penis-first" rather than "womam first" or reductionally "clitoris-first."

Back to epistemology and my Lover Shrine. I avoid the word "goddess" for substantial reasons. The Lover appeared, embodied or incarnated in primal womam femina sapiens culture. If the first womam showed up on our streets today, dressed as we are with a similar hair styling, she would be unremarkable. The difference would be in consciousness as well as sexual physiology and function such as menstruation.

I follow Julian Jaynes in thinking that our right brains are missing a whole area which was once filled as was hers. The advent of patriarchy particularly with its invention of writing, along with its long history of hunting and meat eating has not only brainwashed our brains; it has removed whole areas of function.

I try to compensate for this loss by shrines, language sounds and various other techniques to put me in touch with the Lover, as I call her and her pre-patriarchal culture. I rewrite the rewrite of his-story with herstory.

I listen for the voice of the Lover as if my right brain was functioning as the first womem of the femina sapiens culture would have. The Lover is my first source of information.

Patriarchy overthrew the original love culture, probably because some came to resent the superior natural powers of womem and their sexual practices, reverting to the lifestyles of the hominids and animals all around them. Today men have a higher red cell count despite the fact that womem bleed monthly; probably due to meat eating and unconscious linkage to animals. The latter is speculation on my part.

This rebellion by patriarchy and its creation of a patriarchal God authority is the substrata of the Garden of Eden story which blames womem for the original sin.

The dates referenced in article above are late in the context of 150,000 to 300,000 years of femina sapiens existence. By that time, patriachal values of "father first" rather than "womam first" could have been well entrenched, resulting in women and children helping the hunt.

Also keep in mind space as well as time. The digs are occurring in cold climates. Very little survives in equatorial regions where the first femina sapiens people would have had little use for hunting tools or ritual artifacts. The first feminas were filled to overflowing body and brain with the Lover. They had little need for tools or ritual artifacts. They lived on love in a Garden Paradise. The primal femina sapiens Love Order was: earth, womem, children and men as loving support system--in that order.

This original and pure state of love was gradually eroded by anti-love patriarchy until today when the femina sapiens culture and language has been all but obliterated right down to our bodies, brains and sexual practices.

I'd better take a break and post this or I fear I may lose it. I've been at this for two and a quarter hours and I want to save it. I'll also have some barley.

To be continued.

DL,

You are blithering again
like some old broken down show horse
too used to the accolades to give
up now, but please,
spare the crowd the whinnying and whining
for that is all you do.

Wasting the electricity my taxes,
yes my taxes pay for at the library
to allow your your postings

Go eat your barely.
Your mind is not adept enough
to distinguish fact from fiction,
fantasy from daylight,
delusion from illusion,
DNA from RNA
mother from father,
patriarchy from your own invention,
your own inventions from
the tragedy of your Jesuit upbringing,

Your words contort and pervert science and memory,
into a stew of molasses...

A sad childhood is no excuse to write,
nor a happy one either...

Who cares that a broken down mule...
(I erred in thinking you a show horse...)
brays at the moon,
alive only a pet to existence.

You are a prisoner of your own precepts.

Take a bath, clean your mind, start fresh
and stop spewing signs of senility all around.

I see that a couple comments came in while I was eating barley out under the warm sun.

It seems that there is evidence for domesticated dogs 37,000 years ago and there "may" be some from 100,000 years ago. As I pointed out above, patriarchal practices such as domestication could have begun anytime between the origin of feminas at the 300,000 to 150,000 timeframes. These are very long time periods and a lot can happen for which the hard evidence is extremely scanty. There is a lot of speculation and little certainty.

David appears to dislike speculation and abstraction, and invites me to cuddle with a cat which I presume is what he does. He brings the discussion away from abstraction and to cuddly fact cats. That's on the level of suggesting that David give away his pets, go vegan, sleep outside, divest himself of as much money as possible to survive and read the writings of MT and JD as a spiritual exercise. Such concrete actions may be helpful but they are not necessary if we exercise our femina sapiens nature which is intelligent love.

Femina womem would not relate to such patriarchal mental hairsplitting about how many angels can sit on the head of a proposition. They were busy listening to the Lover, living with nature and loving the Lover in themselves. Living in a warm, abundant Garden Paradise they needed few tools and ritual artifacts. Those came later as patriarchy gradually geared up their war on the earth womem and children.

Artifacts of the Lover appeared in the early stone age by which time patriarchy had a foothold. Even so the artifacts are practically all of this artistic womam of generous proportions. As the voice of the Lover receded from intimate experience and sexual practices came under attack, art was needed to bolster values.

I do not use the word "goddess" because it is just one more patriarchal con. Goddess would have been an oxymoron in the womam love culture, contradicting all it stood for. I use the word Love or Lover in the personal sense. Not only that, but the very word "God" carries war toxins which are difficult to overcome. It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to justify God as love. God is many times more anti-love than love.

Femina womem and femina men related to animals in their free state. How could they not since animals were all around them and they were animals themselves with the Lover's gift of sapiens or wisdom intelligence? Their consciousness was very different than ours and is difficult to restore. The Lover told them not to kill or eat animals which is still preserved in the "Do Not Kill" commandment. The Lover also directed them not keep pets since real love is linked to maximizing freedom under the laws of ordered love.

Patriarchs altered this delicate love balance and dance between feminas and animals. By hunting and domestication, patriarchs taught animals to fear and flee them when they could, and failing that to submit to their new world order or be killed. In time animals and pets learned to adapt to the survival of the fittest rule.

So that cuddly cat on David's lap and the numerous pets of Suza have come a long way from their free natural state. What is unnatural now seems natural. Such is the power of patriarchal conditioning and manipulation.

However, there are some disturbing "david demerit" facts which trouble this rosy picture. "Earthlings" is the tip of the iceberg. So is the war president Obama. If your mind isn't totally brainwashed by the constant patriarchal propaganda and the relatively comfortable Ojai lifestyle, you will admit that the earth's very existence is being threatened by patriarchal values and there is a horrendous holocaust of suffering going on beyond the gates of our white pale pates.

You can defend the system all you want by calling MT and JD delusional and paranoid but if you are not in contact with the greater reality of the earth, you are delusional and hence projecting. I submit that if you know nothing of the Lover and her culture and support practices that cause suffering and death to billions, you are not in touch with the reality of real love.

If you secretly rejoice that JD has been censored and marginalized and wish the same for me, that is one thing. So what? But if your consciousness and practices harm even one child, that is another matter. She'sus said it this way: "If you harm any of these little ones, it were better a millstone were hung about your neck and you were thrown into the sea." She'sus refers to the real Jesus, not the fictional patriarchal one.

Pethood is a subset of animal abuse. It is an enabler which creates a slippery slope for animal abuse and thereafter human abuse through war and exploitation.

I don't care if you can't see it. That is not my responsibility or karma. The Lover tells me to tell herstory and that is what I am doing.

I've got to go. I've been invited to another breakfast by a real womam.

I look forward to continuing this discussion. It is absolutely necessary to our survival on this planet that we restore the original love government order. The question of pethood is only one challenge we face but it's as good as any other place to start. Unlike linear patriarchy's big bang which goes nowhere except to the bank, womam's mind runs in circles, spirals and lamniscates which is where I choose to be.

Dennis,

You have reduced the living, breathing, ineffable subtlety of Cathood down into the narrow, shallow, demeaning concept of being "cuddly." I didn't ask you to cuddle with a cat, I asked you to RELATE to it in a way that is meaningful to cats, which has a strong physical component. If you can ever learn to do that, and would like to report back to us what you discover -- facts, my friend -- then I would be happy to continue this conversation with you. Until then............. adios.

Dennis, I appreciate the beauty of your vision, and can understand why you love it.

But you realize, though, that you've created your own paradise myth?

Actually very much like the Garden of Eden, with a flipped sense of status between women and men. and no pesky snake? In your myth, humans fell from grace because of a move towards male-dominated society, and by extraction, "patriarchal," hierarchical, and violent society; in the Christian version, we fell from grace because of that bad girl Eve. (Which apparently brought us to the same violence, even though the male-domination was inherent in the myth...Adam's rib and all that, and the banishment of Lilith.)

There are versions of paradise myths in many cultures...

As someone who studies and loves myth, I recognize that we can find truth in myths. As the ancient Greeks said, myths are the stories that are simultaneously least and most true. The problem, however, is when they're believed literally -- their truths lie in what they illuminate -- both in terms of our projections and our interpretations about the world and our psyches. Their metaphoric truths can intertwine with rational truth, but it is, I think, exceedingly important to understand the difference.

Myths can be cultural, and archetypal, and are also exceedingly personal, especially when we begin to extrapolate what is of value in them.

While I acknowledge that science (for example, archaeology) is an ongoing learning and discovery process, and is, like all things, vulnerable to interpretation, it does try to base its assumptions and extrapolations in as much evidence as possible.

You speak of a mythic culture that has left no evidence (in spite of the fact that archaeology has shown evidence of tool use in the warm climates of Africa in the time period you're talking about, and earlier), which doesn't mean that it's not a good myth, but it means it's not good science. It's an imaginal construct, a personal myth.

And because it's your personal myth, you've done a lot of extrapolating about (getting back to the original topic, or at least something vaguely close to it) about how humans and animals interacted in this myth.

In my personal paradise myth, animals (and plants!) of all species interacted, supported one another, and engaged in loving relationships. In my myth, love is not defined by species. Is this based on fact? No! It is as reasonable as your myth? Yes!

So -- because your myth is personal and has meaning to you, you are completely entitled to imagining the free and noble animal unfettered by human relationships as a step towards the paradise you've envisioned. However, please don't confuse that with science (nature is not particularly benign) or even a universal truth.

Best,
Leigh

Finding tools in Africa from 150,000 to 300,000 years ago and discovering DNA evidence of relationships between animals and humans from the same time period does not weaken the force of my argument for the existence of a femina sapiens culture which began during those years.

I said the first femina sapiens communities would have had little need or use for tools, given they were in an equatorial region where they could gather and plant by hand. Little need means they could have used perishable or stone tools if they wished.

I don't understand how DNA evidence can show a relationship between domesticated animals and humans but I'll take your word for it. Even if it does from 100,000 years ago, it still does not reduce my argument.

Suppose that Mitochondrial Eve appeared 200,000 years ago. That's leaves 100,000 years for some femina sapiens humans to take up patriarchal values such as domestication.

Leigh concludes that femina sapiens is an "imaginal construct" and not "good science." She thus dismisses that culture by an assertion that itself is not backed up with credible evidence.

Leigh appears to be the best that the pethood supporters have to offer. Yet even she can bring no substantial reasons to the discussion other than pethood benefits her.

Leigh and friends are left with only one option to attempt to show their stance is reasonable. Attack people who advocate for animals and against pethood. Leigh and friends even misinterpret what PETA is coming around to saying: that pethood itself is a major cause of animal abuse.

I am describing an ideal culture of love but that does not make it unreal or unscientific. Today we take a very narrow view of "science." Science means knowledge which includes much more than our current focus on materialistic technology within the reigning "religion" of science with its priestcraft and economic payscales.

The femina sapiens culture of love made no schizophrenic distinction between science and myth as we do where each side is in it for power needs.

I am not merely flipping a story from one side to the other. Herstory is grounded in scientific fact which includes more than gene studies or archeology. For example, there is the "science" of reading ancient written texts such as the bible for their truth values. There is also the science of direct knowing.

All myths are personal. Put enough of them together and you get a collective myth.

Leigh misquotes me when he or she says I "speak of a mythic culture that has left no evidence." This is not what I said. I said the opposite. The mythic culture of femina sapiens left plenty of evidence in our genes, archeology, ancient writings and in the real world today. If some of them used tools and domesticated animals, that does not mean they all did. The exceptions often prove the rule.

Comment 66 from Leigh is revealing: "...(nature is not particularly benign) or even a universal truth."

What? Talk about a patriarchal worldview. There it is. What is benign then or a universal truth?

Is that the underlying reason why Leigh and friends use pets to fill their emotional needs? Does all the mental twisting and turning come down to this? Do all the ad hominem attacks try to distract from this?

Nature is not benign or true in their deepest feelings and so they need a substitute which they fill with pethood.

Thanks again to all for this interesting thread.

DL, just to be sure I understand your philosophy, are you saying it is better to kill all the domesticated animals that are alive today, rather than doom them to a life of "pethood?"

Are you aware that you lump all people who take care of animals that can no longer survive on their own, in one basket?

Is there not a part of you that wonders if your mantra that people have pets to meet their emotional needs, is a projection of your own loneliness?

Dennis, Leigh's a she.

And I assure you, she's not patriarchal. Nor is she matriarchal. In fact, she thinks assigning gender-based values to natural behavior (in humans or anywhere else) is a load of crock. Every living creature male, female, or in between, has some capacity to nurture or to destroy, to defend itself, or be submissive. Some do it with more of what we humans understand as cognizance, some do it with less. The very idea of feminine and masculine attributes comes from, as you are so fond of talking about, patriarchal constructs. So she doesn't buy the whole argument.

Since you've chosen to talk about me in the third person rather than directly addressing me, I suppose I can talk back to you in the third person! But that's tiring, and irritating even me, so...

I didn't misquote you when I said your femina sapiens was an imaginal construct -- I said it was an imaginal construct. Which it is. You have absolutely NO scientific proof that such a species existed. You crow about the fact that they would have left no archaeological proof. And while I agree that there are lots of ways of "knowing," reading the Bible or other ancient texts for "proof" of an otherwise un-evidenced culture isn't science.

Maybe such a culture existed. But you can't observe it, can't demonstrate it, can't provide tangible evidence for it -- which leaves you in the enviable position of announcing the truth about something without the burden of proof. That, sir, is myth or religion, not science. And until you can prove to me that such a species existed, I'm willing to entertain the ideas you raise, but I'm not willing to accept them as immutable.

Additionally, you're making huge cognitive leaps about the nature of patriarchy and animal domination that are based in the Judeo-Christian constructs about the dominance of human beings over animals. If you look at contemporary hunter/gatherer cultures, even those that do (gasp!) eat meat and keep domestic companion animals, you'll see a very different understanding of human and animal interactions and relative value. For example, the Bushmen in the Kalahari believe that not only are human beings and animals alive with soul/spirit, but also plants, wind, water, etc. And they believe those souls can move between one another. So, my personal myth of Eden actually has a closer link to what is extant now than yours does -- it better reflects how current hunter/gatherer cultures imagine their relationships with animals than yours. It's not species centric. And you can't prove otherwise!

So - benefits to my animals. I don't presume to assume all of those benefits, for they aren't mine to feel.

However, here are a few of the tangible ones: longer life than most animals in the wild, warmth, good food, comfortable safe spots to sleep (the cushiest ones in the house for dogs and cats), a stable pack for my dogs, herd for my horses, and for my cats, the ability to come and go as they please (the dogs have no desire to go without me, and I'm finding that increasingly true with my horses as well, the more love and the less pressure I show them, figure that!), medical care when they hurt (even as simple as pulling a thorn out of their foot or an antibiotic for an infected bite or scratch), lots of time to play and toys to play with, not having to worry about survival daily. Swimming in the ocean, running in the forest. And, if their health fails, the ability to bring them a painless death.

None of this may be of value to you, because their nobility in the wild seems to be more important. But it sure seems to be of value to them! And freedom is a complicated thing...

And, oh, yes, there's that thing you don't believe in -- love. Lots of it. That they give as well as receive. Happiness that goes with it. Increased learning and play that goes with it.

And no, Dennis, nature isn't benign. Doesn't mean it isn't loving, but it sure isn't easy, and it isn't particularly kind. There's nothing patriarchal about my understanding of that. Ask the ground squirrel caught in the talons of the great horned owl behind my house if he thinks it's benign. Or the coyote that's picked up a bacterial infection in his paw from a sharp stick he jumped on, and the paw slowly rots off. Or even the other coyote who's been pushed out of the pack to fend for himself. Or the herd of deer that are starving because they've overpopulated an area...

Do you honestly think animals in those situations are spending a lot of time while contemplating their slow or fast deaths thinking, 'well, thank heavens I didn't interact with those toxic humans and kept myself free!?'

I realize that's absurd, but it's about as simplistic as assuming that freedom is perfect and human companionship is slavery.

And I think PETA is dead wrong about a lot of their thinking about companion animals. Does the fact that some companion animals get abused mean that all companion animals should be annihilated? So, by extraction, because some children are abused, no one should have children? Or because some spouses murder each other, no one should get married?

Same level of absurdity, to my mind.

Leigh

Leigh, thank you again for taking the time to respond to DL. Your animals for sure are among the lucky ones on the Planet!

new year's resolution: stop wasting time and energy arguing with DL.

"new year's resolution: stop wasting time and energy arguing with DL."

Well, there's that, too! :-)

So far, I'm still entertaining myself...

And thank you, Suza -- I actually get the giggles about animals being enslaved -- in my house, it's so clearly the other way around! :-)

As I suspect it is in your house with your lovely pack, too...

:-)
Leigh

Leigh,
You so eloquently state the feelings that abound in our pack. Thank you for your patience to take the time to respond to any neiiiiigh sayerz.

With plenty of love to go around, receive and give, I too, without the long winded-ness of some, have never quite understood the culture of animal domestication. I enjoy other's pets yet haven't but once had one. Now maybe it's something as simple as if you grew up with pets in your home as a child and was imprinted with that tradition then as an adult that domestic animal culture is carried on and for those of us who did not have pets as children it's something we have never missed or find particularly alluring.

That's cool! I think some people are more drawn to animals in this way than others. Some of my best friends don't have pets! And they're even happy, loving people!

What gets my (longwinded!) hackles up is when somebody tells me I shouldn't love mine, and/or don't love mine, and that no one should have relationships with them.

:-)
Leigh

I woke up at about 4:30 and after looking at the stars for awhile, decided to come here and try to tie up loose ends and come to some kind of graceful resolution. Whole oats are cooking on the stove behind me.

Leigh, you are quite a graceful, stately and generous person or so it seems from your style. I am happy to learn you are a she and that you have a websight whch I shall soon have the privilege of visiting. The reason I spoke of you in the third person was that in directing comments to a general audience, it is easier to speak in third persons rather than address each person directly, although you will note that I have done that too.

You bring up fundamental understandings of issues which is why I think you are the best pethood has to offer on this site. Hence, it is my honor to communicate with you. You test my views which after all may be wrong. And if I come to see that they are wrong, I will not hesitate to state it publicly here.

You also strike me as mature whatever your chronological years. For example, despite feeling rage at some of my remarks, you resisted engaging in ad hominem attacks and took the high ground of rationality. There are posters who simply do not have that level of maturity. It's OK. I'd rather be attacked emotionally than go the route of censorship which as you might recall was an issue early on in this thread.

With a person of your caliber, I've got to be on my best behavior and sharpen my intelligence to the max. You are indeed a challenge.

First though I want to answer Suza which I have done before. In first and second person terms, I would address you directly, Suza, but I hope you understand how cumbersome that can become.

I have asked Suza and friends to distinguish between long and short term solutions. If the long term solution is held firmly in mind, the short term will take care of itself. The long term solution is to free all animals, and thereby free humans from a co-dependent relationship so they can have a real humam to animal love relationship. This would go a long way in solving the general animal abuse problem but of course there are other problems like eating animals and their products.

The short term solution needs to be looked at on a case by case basis. To suggest that I advocate for wholesale immediate euthanasia is a reductio ad absurdum argument designed to discredit my long term rationale. Suza has chosen to keep some pets alive for reasons that are legitimate for her. I have no problem with that. I like Suza and admire her character and personality from what little I really know of her. I'm talking about supporting a principle of truth and a real solution to an all too real problem.

One thing is clear. Humans have created a terrible problem with regard to animals and themselves. I have a clear solution that will work which PETA is coming around to also. I feel the horrible suffering of animals in unbelievable numbers. Suza feels it too. Her solution is very different than mine. I believe her solution actually enables the problem to continue and get worse.

I am arguing for tough love and making very hard decisions that I believe will have beneficial results and solve the general problem in the long run. In the short term, however, people like Suza can take a different approach. We're talking about long time periods. In time, if what some in PETA and myself are saying has truth value, truth will out and save the day. Theoretically, Suza and friends could be right by saving a few animals. But the evidence shows that their approach is not working; and something different needs to be tried.

Now, back to you, Leigh. This is not just a personal matter. If it were, I would not get up early in the cold (there is no heat where I work) and work on this problem. You and I are stand-ins for many other people and animals; and more importantly for the principle of love. Love is the first principle which is the Greek meaning of arche or archy. Patri-archy is not a first principle although that is the lie we live under.

I am going to say some things that you will feel as hurtful. Don't take it personally; I am not against you personally. I am for the principle principal.

When you feel rage as you did when I suggested that your intelligence was dulled by your misplaced love for pets, that is significant. Discussing it here is beside the point. When someone says something that I feel hurt by here, and they often do, I consider it for its truth value.

Leigh, your notion of science is extremely limited. You appear to be a child of your times in this regard so don't feel alone. I don't know what your educational background is but it appears to have been neglected. If you went through the normal school to job channels and accepted what you were taught, it is limited indeed.

Today's science is patriarchal and has little if nothing to do with truth. If you rely on modern science as a basis for your life and life choices, you will not be able to understand much of what I am saying. Science comes from the word "know." The ancient maxim was "know yourself" long before modern science. We have to take the long view.

You claim to be intelligent and you are in terms of this culture. But some of your statements indicate that you misinterpret reality which is a major characteristic of the culture we live in. You do not "hear" or "see" what I said. Something else is going on and I am suggesting that part of your blocking of your self knowledge is your addiction to pets which dulls your femina sapiens nature.

For example, and I'm scrolling backwards through your comments: "What gets my (longwinded) hackles up is when somebody tells me I shouldn't love mine, and/or don't love mine, and that no one should have relationships with them."

This is a complete misstatement of what I have said. You are out of touch with reality. Your intelligence is dulled by your pet emotional addiction.

Notice the term "hackles" as if you were a pet. Note how you put yourself down with "(longwinded)" as if to unconsciously cancel what you are saying. Sure, I get the humor; I do it myself but there's something more to it, and I often denigrate myself too as a form of protection.

I have not told you that you shouldn't love your pets, or that you don't love them or that "no one should have relationships with them." You are out of touch. You are not hearing me. My whole philosophy is that of love which includes your pets.

I'm telling you and your friends that your pet addition is dulling your intelligence, and therefore you cannot "know" in a scientific way who you are as femina sapiens. I expect that you will feel hurt and angry. I would too if my intellectual edifice was attacked and it was not secure to begin with. I will tell you things that your shrink will not because I am not part of his or her system.

I do so out of love for the billions of suffering animals and people on this planet. Truth often hurts but it can hurt good too, especially as you break though addictions; and bear in mind that pethood is not the major addiction our culture has. There are others far more serious and I will address them in good time.

Please try not to take this personally and look for the truth with the scientific intelligence you have. This is not about you but about the ideas we hold. I say this likewise to myself in anticipation of the blowback I'll receive.

Scrolling back I come to your partial agreement with "I'm a neigh sayer too." Your addiction to pets too easily accepts his or her contention that pet keepers may have had pets in their childhood and that explains present behavior. That may be true but such a theory lets you off the hook of truth and therefore you proclaim it cool, and cite examples of friends who do not have pets. Presto, your addiction is safe thanks to a mental defense mechanism. You had a chance to know yourself and you missed it.
So what? The chances for self knowledge come a mile a minute and are constantly bombarding us.

Scrolling up a little further are support statements from your friends. Leigh, these are not your friends. They are not speaking the truth; they are enabling your addiction. You will deny it until hell freezes over or your addiction collapses of its own weight, but I am your friend and I love you enough to tell you the truth.

In comment 72, you dismiss the notion of pet slavery with humor and words designed to redirect any threats to your addiction. They are more clever defense mechanisms that do not serve your femina sapiens nature.

Scrolling up to comment 69, you use the defense of "reductio ad absurdum" with the closing words of "Same level of absurdity to my mind," while still not giving any rational defense of pethood itself other than saving a precious few of your choice as if that speaks to the principle involved.

In the previous paragraph, you think "PETA is dead wrong..." but then your scientific intelligence fails you and in trying to make PETA look absurd, you make truly absurd statements which for brevity's sake I will not enter into now.

I must pause here because I feel the little girl in you becoming really scared. The little child who took to pets because she felt "nature was not particularly benign or truthful." Pets on the other hand are loving, benign and truthful; and they can be controlled.

I may have crossed a line that only you can see. The unscientific womamchild in you who predates patriarchal science by millenia asked for it. You asked for it in the first and second person; I honored your request. If you have the ego strength you think you do, you will receive it as it was offered. If not, well, there is always another day and another comment.

I see you were up late last night. Hope you got a good night's sleep.

Me and my menagerie agree with Leigh.

Neigh sayer, you I can understand. I have no argument with my friends and family members who do not feel the call of "pethood."

Where I draw the line is DL's hypocritical condemnation of people who adopt animals.

In over 6,000 words, he has put forth the view that when animals are adopted into human homes, the mutual bonds that develop are misguided.

DL, again I say, killing animals who depend on humans for survival, or releasing them into the wild, is not an option.

My conscience will not allow me return my dogs, cats and pot-bellied pigs to the already over-crowded-stretched to the max humane society where they await an uncertain fate, most likely death.

Gentle reminder: Euthanasia is a euphemism for the killing of animals born into this world due to humans not spaying and neutering their pets.

I am still waiting for DL to finish his porridge (no doubt boiled outdoors over an open fire made by rubbing two sticks together)and clarify his philosphy as requested in Comment #68.

Correction:

DL's porridge was not cooked over an open-fire:

"Whole oats are cooking on the stove behind me."

"And if I come to see that they are wrong, I will not hesitate to state it publicly here."

DL, if you were clear on your views, you could state them succinctly in 500 words or less.

What would you do if a hungry, homeless dog followed you home?

OK, DL, one more round:

I have given you the benefit of a doubt once more, and waded through the thousands of words in Comment # 76, which I had not read beore I posted Comment #77.

(The part about the porridge was just a wild guess, ha! ha!)

You wrote:

"One thing is clear. Humans have created a terrible problem with regard to animals and themselves. I have a clear solution that will work which PETA is coming around to also. I feel the horrible suffering of animals in unbelievable numbers. Suza feels it too. Her solution is very different than mine. I believe her solution actually enables the problem to continue and get worse."

My solution to the problem at hand is "spay, neuter and adopt."

In 500 words or less, how does that make the problem worse?

If we live to see that happy day when all the animal shelters are empty, then we can sanely discuss the next level of what is best for animals. (Like 0 Population Growth for people so that we stop destroying what little wild habitat remains)

Do you think I don't see that all problems are connected?

That because I adopt a stray dog as opposed to shooting him, my mind is somehow child-like and not as clear as yours?

In all your thousands of words, I do not see what you repeatedly claim:

"I have a clear solution that will work "

If it is so clear, why can you not state it in 500 words or less?

When I read your arrogant comments to Leigh, I envision the two of us roasting you over an open fire, our dogs and cats gathered around, licking their lips...

Ahh, Dennis --

This will be relatively short, because apparently long doesn't make a dent. A few things...

I am not hurt or angry, or for that matter, frightened by you. I am actually in awe at your ability to obfuscate.

And am completely amused by your attempt to alpha roll me in your attempt to prove your point about your hatred of the patriarchy.

(Leigh, you're dear, you're sweet, you're confused, you're addicted, you're uneducated, the little girl in you is scared, but I know you better than you know yourself, small woman child, pat, pat, pat the little head!) You are a riot!

I can assure you my education has not been neglected. If you'd bothered to read my website, you'd both know that and you'd know that I've spent a lifetime looking analytically and creatively at the culture we live in, as well as other cultures.

Science is science. It is about logic, empirical, rational thought constructs that are provable. That's what makes it science, not what makes it patriarchal. As I've said before, it's not the only way of knowing, but it's the only way that offers proof.

Your argument is, as far as I can tell, that because I feel emotion, I can't be thinking clearly about anything I feel emotion about. And yet your basic "truths" about the world are based only on what you think and feel. You claim logic, without its constraints. And in so doing, you appoint yourself the power and truth holder -- a power move. And one could argue, a patriarchal one. As evidenced by your need to try and strip me of any of my power by condescending to me. (And whatever real love is, Dennis? It doesn't include trying to make someone else feel small and powerless...that's what abusers do, not lovers...)

Oh -- and by the way, I didn't take the time to argue the point with "neighsayer too" about his or her theory about pet ownership because I a) don't need to argue every point that people bring up, and b) it was something she or he was wondering, rather than asserting. And I'm sure that it is true for some people -- they just didn't get introduced to animals as children and never discovered the joys (for all involved) in loving with them. But it actually isn't a theory that is unilaterally true in my experience -- many of the people I know who love animals grew up with them, many of the people I know who love animals didn't. But it was a reasonable wondering from someone who sounds like a perfectly nice person.

A valiant effort on your part to get to the heart of my denial/addicition! Except that you were wrong. Again.

You see, Dennis, I live in a world that people don't have to agree with me lock step to be "enlightened." And I really don't have a problem with your theories, except that, in true patriarchal, Judeo-Christian evangelical fashion, you've decided everyone should live by them. If you don't understand the love that can happen between human animals and other species, that's just fine -- you don't need to. But please don't confuse your lack of understanding with insight into what anyone else should be doing.

But you do get points for being able to use reductio ad absurdum in a sentence!

I'm done. Need to go hug my dogs. Or my husband. All of whom are my furry friends. Or maybe go for a walk in that loving, but unkind nature, where I spend a great deal of delighted time.

Leigh

Suza, I did a spit take with your line about roasting Dennis over an open fire!

Santa Maria seasoning, do you think?

:-)

Best,
Leigh

Thank you, Leigh, for that rousing example of self-defense.

You and your friends have shown your true colors. I have also shown mine. What more could we ask for in the land of the free?

Free as a three-bean salad!

I noticed that Dennis did not answer the questions in Comments #79 and #81.

I really do try to play well with others! But Suza's image was pretty funny...

And you, Dennis, moved from ideas to personality without knowing jack about me. You projected a whole lot of pseudo-psychological clap trap on me in an effort to gain control, because, apparently, you couldn't argue with my logic.

Which part of "woman child," "scared little girl," "uneducated" and "addicted" didn't feel patronizing to you? (And you will note the root of the word "patronizing.")

Or maybe it was the part where you told me I didn't know who my friends were?

Assuming for a moment that you really thought you were trying to be helpful, here are some questions for you...(and assuming that you did in fact read my response to you)...

Can you not see that was an effort to (among other things) to cast yourself in the paternal position of being the all-knowing, all caring being who obviously knows far more about me and the world than I do? Who's going to lead me to grace through your own benevolent wisdom, far greater than mine? Can't you see that's the classic power-over move? Which is at the heart of patriarchy...

Bless me father, for I have sinned!

Isn't that what you really wanted to hear me say?

If you're really trying to rid yourself of patriarchal energy, stepping back and acknowledging that you don't know more about other people than they do and aren't innately "righter" than they are is a start. So is not projecting a whole lot of your own fantasies on to someone you've never met about who they are and how they think, and then getting all misty-eyed about your graciousness as you insult them. (Heck, you even admitted second thoughts about it in Tyler's pictures thread.)

I can respect healthy dialogue and debate and people I disagree with. But I don't respect people who don't respect me. Why bother? It's wasted energy.

Think Candide! Cultivate your own garden! A multi-colored garden! Truly! A bean garden!

Leigh

Does DL have enough intelligence to recognize he's been completely outclassed? Leigh is thinking circles around you DL. Well done Leigh, well done.

I think Leigh and Dennis are both power tripping on each other.

Good morning again Ojaians and lovers of three bean salads.

Synchronicity at Christmas time. Indeed, I have long held that Ojai is a microcosm of the world and that all virtual roads will one day lead to her as they once did to Rome.

Time is accelerating and coming together. These may not be the end times or the beginning times but they are certainly interesting times.

I think we are getting a glimpse into the nature of intelligence and true love right here in our own little town of Ojaihem. It bodes well for the New Year.

Leigh, I must admit to myself that you are the best I've encountered in Ojai as far as intelligence goes, with the possible exception of MT and JD. In your chosen field, narrow as it is, you run circles around me as noted here. I also notice in myself a special love for you; as well as for Suza, david, dharma, Mahatma and all your furry friends including your husband as you referred to him.

What a wonderful three bean salad we have here in Ojai, with even a few Ojaian jumping beans included. My own three bean contribution to the World Ojai Network is the Red Brown and Blue Party bean salad. I haven't been doing much dining there lately due to my fascination with what is happening here.

It was noted that I am ignoring comment 79 and 81. Not true. I read everything and within time and space constraints answer everything I can. I will do that now.

Comment 79 refers I think to Suza's repeated question of what to do with homeless dogs, and to her request for me to state in 500 words or less my views. It's a reasonable request for someone who lacks the intelligence to do that for herself from the 6000 words I have already provided. "Convinced against your will, you have the same opinion still." What we're dealing with here is not only intelligence but the willingness to see truth. My contention all along has been that pethood dulls the intelligence and I believe my point is being made by the responses to my already clear exposition.

Comment 79 thinks that if I were clear on my views I could state them in 500 words. Fair enough. I am clear in my views but if someone is not clear enough in their intelligence, 50, 500, 5000, or 50,000 words are not going to strike pay dirt. Again, my point about pethood dulling the intelligence strikes home.

I'll try again from a different angle. I'll tell a short story in 500 words, taking off on the plot provided by commenter 79.
____________________

"Denise had a problem. A hungry, homeless dog followed her home.

Denise called her Dennis. Dennis was beautiful, golden haired with deep brown eyes overflowing with love. He had apparently been abandoned and bore the scars of abuse.

Denise fell in love. In the instant of that first look, Denise and Dennis became lovers.

What to do?

The pain was unbearable. Denise was all too aware of animal abuse. She was a leader in PETA. She believed in a long term solution of freedom for all animals.

In her mind the options were euthanasia or adoption with sexual mutilation.

After giving Dennis dinner, she looked deeply and steadily into his eyes. She entered that state that only lovers know.

In that knowing, all their sisters and brothers were present. It was a synchronous moment where time stood still and space didn't matter.

Love alone counted as if the world hung in the balance.

Death.

Life.

Earth.

The lovers knew what had to be done.

Death, Life and Earth came together in a lover's embrace. The fire of love provided the answer and the solution.

Denise called the humane local agency with tears in her eyes and joy in her heart.

Parting was such sweet sorrow.

But wait. Shivers ran through her body. She spun around to look for Dennis.

He was gone. He wasn't there.

In panic, Denise ran to the garden and stopped in shock. Dennis' lifeless body lay peacefully under an apple tree.

Sobbing with mixed up sorrow and joy, she fell to her knees at the realization.

Dennis was all around her, in every leaf and blade of grass.

No longer able to bear the weight, Denise fell into a deep sleep of bliss.
_______________________

I don't know what the word count for the above is but I hope it is under 500.

Clarity and obfuscation go together in this two faced world. I think I'm clear; you don't.

If half of pet keepers would see the light I do, the problem would be solved all in good time. If half of pet keepers would not take on more pets themselves through humane euthanasia or sex surgery, while keeping the pets they have, a solution would eventually obtain. If all pet keepers would keep the pets they have and allow them to live out their lives but not allow them to reproduce, the problem would soon be solved.

However, a sea change in consciousness relative to pets and humans would have to concurrently occur for the solution to hold.

If we do nothing different, the problem will only get worse and contribute to an ecological disaster that will consume us all. The present practice of pethood is unsustainable and is based on a deepset collective human neurosis.

To deny this fact is to prove the point of intelligence deficit deriving largely from improper human and animal relationships.

I will take up comment 81 in a following post.

stop engaging this fool

Dennis, you are the patriarchy personified.

Your lack of mercy tells all.

Comment 81 reads: "When I read your arrogant comments to Leigh, I envision the two of us roasting you over an open fire, our dogs and cats gathered around, licking their lips..."

It's a stunning graphic and gathers into one image the gist of this thread. Leigh's Imaginal Institute to the max.

Leigh herself appears ambivalent about the image. She prefers to "play" in a higher ground but in comment 83 does anything but disavow the image.

So, although marinated with humor, my life is threatened with an imaginal image which makes animals co-conspirators.

Am I answering #86?

Commenter 81 links arms with Leigh in this gruesome imaginal sport. If Imaginal Institute Leigh does not unlink, she is linked. You may wink at this jolly sport but someone of Leigh's depth will understand the subliminal sub-text all too well.

Ah, the underbelly of Suza's zoo and cute little piggies. "This little piggie went to market..." Children's games are so innocent with those Lion Kings and Pooh Bears. No adult manipulation there, of course, and no money exchanging hands over the bodies of animals.

Oh, the joys of uncovering layers of truth. Ask JD. Or JC. There is a kickback, though, as this thread will forever illustrate, unless of course is disappears like Nixon's tape section.

I really love you all, especially Leigh for playing along. You think I'm full of hateful patriarchy. I'm just a mirror or an imaginal institute. I did, by the way, read all of your website many months ago, Leigh. I am impressed up to a point.

Is this what underlies pet love?

This image is a twisted version of witches burned at the stake for daring to speak words or practice things contrary to the local cultural norm. One stake is perpendicular and one horizontal but the message is the same.

Those who disavow one but not the other are involved in a self contradiction as is pethood.

If I could undo the witch burnings by my own Ojaian version of burning at the stake, I might try. I have a martyr complex anyway from my childhood indoctrination.

Things do come together synchronally in Ojai and they are not all pleasant. This is to be expected. The dark side of pethood and local politics must be confronted or it will forever fester and do its dirty work.

As with so many others here who betray their limited intelligence by projecting it onto me, commenter 81 assumes that I am "arrogant" which itself is quite an arrogant assumption based on unwarranted speculation.

I prefaced my remarks to Leigh with all kinds of disclaimers and gentle words. I asked her not to take it personally because we were both stand-ins for opposing principles, or in the words of #89 power-trippers. She proceeded to take it very personally while in the same breath claiming not to be angry. Self-deception and pethood makes a two grain gruel if not a three bean salad.

If alignment with burning at the stake imaginal images doesn't cover anger, then JD and david (should he still be in the game) are co-conspirators.

Am I speaking to Albert's #86 question relating to #81's non-question? It's a little tiring and potentially confusing to continually scroll up and back down to here.

If I took things personally like Leigh and friends, well, I'd be like them but I'm not. I'd like to gather up all the emotional statements that have been sent my way over the years on this Post into one basket but I don't think there is a basket big enough. On the other hand, the truly rational and loving sentiments could be easily basketed.

I am patriarchal. "I've already confessed; no need to confess again." However, I am a recovering patriarch also. For some of you, my recovery is in remission.

Well, I could go on and on but it's like talking with david; I never get anywhere because for him it's a game of musical chair words or like talking with Suza: truth is brevity or with Leigh who can't seem to distinguish the impersonal from the personal despite her years of cultural schooling and accredited degrees.

Ojai, Ojai, how beautiful we are. At this holy day season may Love bless us all, every one.

And #89, if you're keeping score, which power is leading in this game?

Dennis, we miss you here at the library, where you get ten minute intervals to use our computers. And your son called, he wants his computer back.

Speaking of animals, I was reminded of a book I read when I was a little girl; "Letters to Strongheart" J.Allen Boone.

Oh yes, the Wonder of Life as the power of Love bestows. So this little book falls into my hands and my heart. A metaphysical rendering that opened the door to the grand and marvelous world I knew was there but needed the key to. And the simplicity of the book was just right for an 8 year old child. I am not sure if the intellectual, adulterated, cynical old man of us can find the book meaningful. Maybe it is only written for the Child, the tender and vulnerable ones, I don't know.

I tell you true, the Beauty of this little book's profound and wise message was the planting of a small seed has grown into a marvelous mystical fruit tree that provides my nourishment and sustenance in all ways.
Grace

Thank you, Grace, for reminding us about "Letters to Strongheart."

This timeless book, published in the 1930's, is one of the greatest books of all time.

It is still in print, and still loved by young and old, all generations.

I have J. Allen Boone's other classic, "Kinship With All Life." He describes how he communicates with Strongheart and other four-legged, six-legged and no-legged creatures.

I am so glad you reminded me of Boone's writings because now that I have a new, very young dog is a good time to re read them.

I opened "Kinship with All Life," to Chapter 17, "Magic Alchemy."

Boone writes:

"It may help us to understand how the Mind of the Universe speaks through a man to his dog and through dog to man, if we imagine two humans who have established the same kind of bridge for two-way traffic that Strongheart and I found to be so practical and helpful..."

"...I began to see how little difference there is between mentally bridging across to a human in this manner and doing so with a dog, providing that the mental bridge across to the dog is kept as high and as horizontal as it would be in the case of an intelligent and respected human..."

"In trying to hear and understand Strongheart when he silently spoke to me, or rather when he was spoken through by the Mind of the Universe, my conventional ears were great handicaps. They were geared to harsh and discordant earth sounds and were unable to pick up the delicate universal mental language, especially as it came through a dog.

I made real progress only when I gave the most dillgent heed to the "practically lost art of listening," which, as William Butler Yeats maintained, "is the nearest of all arts to Eternity."

We need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of animals.

Remote from universal nature, and living by complicated artifice, man in civilization surveys the creature through the glass of his knowledge and sees thereby a feather magnified and the whole image in distortion.

We patronize them for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate of having taken form so far below ourselves.

And therein we err, and greatly err.

For the animal shall not be measured by man.

In a world older and more complete than ours they move finished and complete, gifted with extensions of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear.

They are not brethren, they are not underlings; they are other nations caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendor and travail of the earth.

--Henry Beston,
The Outermost House

Very graceful comments from Grace and Suza. They reinforce my own childhood experience of relating with free spirit animals, like one of my first art projects in carving and coloring an owl.

I don't recall owls being used as pets and if you do, please don't tell me.

I imagine ancient womem observing free animals in the wild with children at their sides and infants at their breast, saying that these animals are holy spirits and must never be enslaved by humans.

We have not heeded the counsel of "womem in their natural environment" and suffer the consequences today in our war torn patriarchal culture.

Free Willy. Free all the animals. Then the truth will set us free.

Henry Beston, you have made my day and my point in sweet words. Your post came in while I was writing mine.

Synchronicity on the move. The free animals are making their move right here in Ojai.

Oh Happy Day!

I won't tarnish The Outermost House with association with mine but just wanted to express my appreciation on behalf of freedom for that other nation.

The tide turns. The "winds of changes shift." A sea change is upon us as Yer Ole Sea Captain said once upon a time.

Comment 100. A synchronous moment.

The Outermost House in comment 97 is powerful. Imagine. A whole nation wiped out, holocausted, enslaved and even eaten. Imagine, imaginal institute.

It's staggering what one species can do to another with such hubris. Make pets out of a ounce proud and powerful nation. Talk about speciesism.

And that's not even going into the link between animal slaughter and human killing. It's a crime not only against humanity but against animality.

If you're not angry about it, you're out of touch with reality.

Wake up, Ojai. Lead the way into a peaceful and sustainable future. Be the first pet free municipality. Be the first whole vegan town. Not by law but by custom.

If after my 7000 or so words, I get the silent treatment, I will take that as acquiescence.

Those who have so earnestly and loudly called for the censor or censure are now reduced to silence themselves. Irony upon paradox.

Mercy asks me to show mercy on the very ones who showed no mercy. Read Shakespeare's Henry V for that line.

The Lover has had enough. It is time for justice and mercy.

If Suza deletes this as she deleted my comment early on, I'll run it under an open thread and see what Tyler does.

"The times they are a changing."

Dear Suza!
I trust you had a fun-filled Christmas and a joyous New Year in the company of your new-found canine friend! That little pooch you rescued is one lucky little dog! And I'm sure that having your new friend around will help soothe the pain of losing Queenie a year ago.

Last month I put in an application to volunteer with the local animal shelter. It all started because I kept rushing to the shelter loaded with blankets and throws for those precious yet homeless critters. I was particularly worried about the dogs because it has been getting pretty cold at night lately. Their enclosures are exposed and made of cold hard concrete.

Some dogs shiver from the cold, others shiver from fear, some are injured and shiver in pain.

Some were found wandering the streets, others are "owner surrender" or victims of a disaster, and yet others were used as breeders or in dog fights and were later turned in or abandoned on the street--but they all have one thing in common: they are all hurting and they all need a loving home.

The fun part about bringing the blankets to the dogs with the help of a staff member or a volunteer is that the animals are immensely appreciative of even the smallest act of kindness.

It breaks my heart to see them so desperate for company and affection and to hear their whimpers and cries. I feel their pain and I'd love to take them all home with me, but there could be as many as 160 of them there at any given time, so of course, I can't. Instead, I decided to become a Dog Whisperer of sorts and help walk, groom and cuddle them once or twice a week for a couple of hours.

To my surprise, I was told I might have to wait until March for Orientation--that's how many volunteer applications they have before mine at my local animal shelter! I was truly amazed that so many people are so willing to help these homeless creatures. (There's hope for Humanity yet!)

Perhaps one reason is that once an animal is at the shelter, if no one claims or adopts him or her soon, they quickly run out of time and are given the infamous lethal injection.

Unfair as it may be, the fate of all the animals at the shelter is directly related to space and time, which is very sad indeed. You see, the ones who don't find a home don't get evicted--they get put down. And since there are more homeless animals than available homes, a great many of them get put down every day, all over the country.

This is why I don't understand why breeders breed more puppies and kittens as it only perpetuates the cycle of unfair and unnecessary killing. As a matter of fact, ironically, many of those same puppies and kittens end up at the shelter and get put down, while their mommies are forced to pump out yet more puppies and kittens. In my view, animals are not a commodity and should not be bought and sold. Or killed, either.

In the meantime, the understaffed shelter welcomes caring people and warm blankets for their temporary residents.

Happy New Year to you and to all your many loyal human and animal friends!

Peace on Earth and Goodwill to All Creatures Great and Small!