•    Mass Extermination is Not Euthanasia   

    Scales of Balanced Justice

    TO:  All Media Outlets & WSYR Channel 9 News

    RE:  Stop Calling Mass Extermination & Genocide Euthanasia

    By-Line: In order to protect animals from abuse – we must first be candid and HONEST about what abuses are routinely taking place right under our noses. Typically, the media lacks this kind of candor and honesty. But HERE we disclose the naked, lamentable TRUTH lurking behind the whitewash media euphemisms.

    The term “Euthanasia” is being abused on a massive epidemic scale. And it doesn’t seem to matter whether it’s erudite, highly educated professional journalists at the New York Times \ Washington Post or recent high school grads at the local newspaper. This term is being misused to describe killing that does not qualify as “Euthanasia.” Even many animal rights activists and no-kill animal shelters can often be heard abusing this counterfeit term (it’s a counterfeit term when used to describe genocide).

    So the task here is to understand WHY this is happening on such a massive scale. This entails identifying the reasons for — the “causes” of — this pernicious, intractable practice of fraudulently labeling genocide. Such an inquiry leads us to two primary reasons for the fraudulent abuse of the term “Euthanasia”:  1) Definition Confusion; 2) The deliberate, calculated, intentional effort to deceive, conceal, distort, misrepresent, and candy-coat acts of killing that are deemed so morally unacceptable that society would be sickened, outraged and appalled if they knew the ‘truth’ — so those who commit those acts are bent on concealing the ‘truth’ with lies, half-truths, fraudulent counterfeit terms and euphemisms.  Regarding this second reason, a profoundly bizarre phenomena has wrapped itself around the initial core problem, by way of by-stander witnesses and journalists, analysts and experts, academics and pundits — who are complicit, unwittingly or not, in the conspiracy to deceive. Perhaps it’s a journalist who feels obliged to regurgitate the terms handed to him (this is not journalism it’s a secretary “taking dictation”) or perhaps it’s an entrenched favorable bias for the accused killer(s).  The bottom line is that there are a wide variety of reasons for engaging in the deception, which range from political and moral to economic and judicial.

    Definition Confusion:  This is the most common reason for the general population — which could include many thoughtless journalists, commentators, pundits and observers who adopted the counterfeit use of the term Euthanasia without ever giving it a second thought — without ever giving it any kind of scrutiny whatsoever. This is particularly astonishing, given how terribly simple and obvious the error is. People have come to erroneously believe that if someone kills in a manner that causes no pain or trauma — if someone kills “humanely” — then it is Euthanasia. So the animal kill-shelter that kills 3,000 perfectly healthy cats each year because they couldn’t find homes for them — they are said to have “Euthanized” the cats merely because they did it in a humane manner.

    The point is that many people erroneously think that the definition for “Animal Euthanasia” is “when an animal is humanely killed” — i.e., when the killing ‘method’ is deemed to be humane.  That is 10 million light-years from the true definition. And just a modest amount of simple common-sense is all that is needed to discover the error. There is no separate definition for human animals versus non-human animals. The term “Euthanize” is the same for each. To uncover the truth simply try applying the erroneous definition to a variety of different, yet comparable, circumstances. Suppose a disgruntled neighbor injects your happy, healthy pet with the same drug that kill-shelters use to kill cats — does that make the killing of your pet Euthanasia? Of course not. In the U.S. many death-row inmates are executed by humane methods (according to the U.S. Supreme Court) each year and no one is suggesting that the inmates were “Euthanized.” Slaughter houses claim that they kill millions of animals each year by ‘humane methods’ — while federal, state and local governments have concurred that the killing methods are humane. Yet no one is calling this Euthanasia. They correctly refer to it as the wholesale “slaughter” of animal life.

    Animal shelters that kill thousands of healthy cats and dogs each year because they cannot find homes for them are called “kill-shelters.” Animal shelters that do not are called “no-kill” shelters. Yet the media and the kill-shelters and the public — and even many no-kill shelters — will refer to the kill-shelter killings as “Euthanizing” those perfectly healthy cats and dogs. This is a case where common usage has completely jumped the tracks, so that a term has come to mean its exact opposite. But we can’t be complacent about the abuse of THIS term because it has a profoundly dark history — tracing back to Hitler’s “T4 Euthanasia” program — which in truth was the “Final Solution’ extermination program. We simply cannot allow this term to be hijacked and bastardized, yet again, by a similar brand of psychopaths. Or even by unwitting dolts.

    Animal Shelters – Animal Rights Groups:  What is most unfathomable is the fact that many animal shelters and animal rights groups have so unwittingly signed-on to this grotesque abuse of the term Euthanasia. You hear it most often when they talk about their noble and admirable “mission” to significantly “reduce the number of cats and dogs Euthanized each year.” The twisted irony is that when the term is fraudulently misused in this way it is weaponized as a euphemism in order to falsify, distort, conceal and candy-coat the reality of what is actually taking place — the wide-scale SLAUGHTER, KILLING, EXTERMINATION of perfectly healthy animals by the thousands — by the millions — merely because society has determined they are a “rift-raft” nuisance eye-sore in the neighborhood communities. What many animal shelters and animal rights groups have failed to realize is that by weaponizing the term as a euphemism it has made it infinitely EASIER for people to abandon pets and to sweep the neighborhoods clean of the nuisance rift-raft — because “Euthanasia is such a kind, compassionate, caring, benevolent thing to do to animals.” What a bitter, brutal irony that is. And so many members of these groups are completely clueless — oblivious of this undeniable horrific consequence of routinely acquiescing to the abominable torture and abuse of the term “Euthanasia.” Even the notorious PETA organization often abuses this term. The blistering irony is that Hitler’s propaganda campaign to trivialize his extermination program as merely Euthanasia was stolen from the animal shelters’ playbook of flagrant, perpetual abuse of that term to describe the routine wholesale slaughter of thousands of perfectly healthy animals — at what they disgustingly called “shelters” for homeless animals. The term “shelter” — when not fraudulently hijacked — usually means “safe haven” — “refuge of protection.”

    Animal Shelters – Animal Rights Groups:  What animal shelters and animal rights groups should realize is that they, themselves, invariably use the terms “kill-shelter” and “no-kill shelter.” These terms are universally recognized by these groups. They do NOT use the terms “euthanasia-shelter” and “non-euthanasia-shelter.” So there is already this very feint, hazy, inarticulate recognition that what’s really going on is the wide-scale SLAUGHTER, KILLING, EXTERMINATION of perfectly healthy animals — NOT the kind, compassionate, caring, benevolent “euthanizing” of animals. The message here is unmistakably clear. If you want to truly educate the public about the importance of being responsible pet owners — STOP falsifying and candy-coating the enormous dire consequences guaranteed to result from ‘irresponsible’ pet ownership — namely — “the wide-scale SLAUGHTER, KILLING, EXTERMINATION of perfectly healthy animals.” Actually, the expression “kill-shelter” is a fallacious contradiction in terms. If it is a killing fields animal warehouse facility — it most definitely is NOT a “shelter.”

    Media accounts about the mass slaughter of Canadian Geese in New York kept calling it “Euthanasia.” The Media stories I’m referring to repeatedly talked about the mass “Euthanization” of Canadian Geese for a variety of alleged reasons ranging from “over population” (a human convenience standard) to “nuisance eye-sore” (a human convenience standard) to air traffic safety (another human convenience standard). Mass Extermination is Not Euthanasia and it never will be — no matter how many times a society or a Hitler butcher’s the human language to make that claim.

    The term “Euthanize” only applies when it is done SOLELY for the benefit of the Euthanized animal or person, to alleviate excruciating, unrelenting pain and suffering of that animal or person, and only where that animal is in an irreversible terminal medical condition, where there is no hope of recovery and the pain and suffering is both pointless and inhumane (pointless in the sense that it is NOT pain briefly endured during a recovery period). In such cases Euthanasia is a last resort because they cannot be medically cured of their injuries, disease or illness and they are suffering enormous pain from their incurable illness.  (fn 2 & 7).

    Virtually every respected dictionary and encyclopedia defines Euthanasia as:  “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.” (Miriam-Webster & Encyclopedia Britannica – fn 2 & 7). Sometimes referred to as “Mercy Killing,” it is unmistakably clear that the sole purpose of the mercy killing is to alleviate the needless, excruciating and extreme suffering of the terminally ill creature being killed. With true Euthanasia – the creature being killed is the sole beneficiary.   There is no other ‘ulterior’ motive — no other intended beneficiary — no other collateral purpose or interest being served when TRUE “Euthanasia” is implemented.

    It is imperative that we understand the profoundly Dark History entailed by the abuse and misuse of the term “Euthanize.”  It has deep roots in the Nazi propaganda machine that served Hitler’s “Final Solution” for achieving genetic purity of the race (Eugenics Program), as they too sought to clear the streets of the ‘rift-raft’ — the physically disabled, the mentally disabled, the elderly, the gays, the gypsies, the Jews and the non-Aryans — just as society today seeks to clear the streets of the ‘rift-raft’ — the homeless wandering dogs and cats deemed to be a ‘nuisance’ and an eye-sore. Hitler and the Nazi Regime called this genocide plan the “T4 Euthanasia Program”  (fn 3-6).

    Hitler knew that if he called it what it really was, “Extermination,” there would have been a mass revolt. But Hitler noticed that the animal shelters routinely abused and misused the counterfeit term “Euthanasia” to describe the wholesale slaughter of healthy animals — merely because they could not find homes for them and they were perceived as a ‘nuisance’. And Hitler immediately realized that society had completely accepted this fraudulent, wholly inappropriate use of this counterfeit term. So he shrewdly falsified what he was doing by calling his genocidal extermination plan the “T4 Euthanasia Program” knowing that most people deem Euthanasia to be a compassionate ‘humanitarian’ act of kindness and benevolence, rather than a ruthless, senseless, sociopathic genocide.  (fn 3-6). It is imperative that we never, ever forget the enormous danger and dire consequences emanating from the desensitization of a society through the constant, routine, calculated falsification of the meaning of the term Euthanasia. We simply cannot allow this term to be hijacked and bastardized, yet again, by a similar brand of sociopaths.

    Killing one being, taking one life, solely for the benefit of ‘another’ (namely the ones doing the killing) is NOT, I repeat, is NOTEuthanasia” in any sense of that term and that term should never, ever be used to describe such conduct.

    Media accounts about the mass slaughter of Canadian Geese in New York kept calling it “euthanasia.” It would appear that all those engaged in this “Mass Extermination Program” and all those in the media reporting about it, are acutely aware of how immoral, inexcusable, unethical, unjustifiable, reprehensible and indefensible this “Mass Extermination Program” really was, otherwise there would be no need to cover it up with fraudulent, sham euphemisms, as the Nazi’s did. If the Extermination of the Canadian Geese is so defensible and honorable and morally justifiable, then come right out and call it exactly what it is — the Mass Extermination & Genocide of perfectly healthy Canadian Geese purely for human convenience reasons, and in no way is it Euthanasia for the benefit of the geese.

    These geese were “Exterminated” purely for human convenience, and that makes the term “Euthanize” totally inapplicable and reprehensible. The ‘human convenience’ is that the humans saved themselves the time, the expense and inconvenience of solving the Canadian Geese problem in an intelligent, non-violent, humanitarian manner. One way or another, this ‘rift-raft’ was going to be discarded — either to a relocation center or to an incinerator. They chose the lazy, unintelligent, sociopathic, ruthless solution — the ‘incinerator’ method, just as Hitler’s “Final Solution” did.

    Killing one being, taking one life solely, for the benefit of ‘another’ (namely the ones doing the killing) is called social engineering “EXTERMINATION” — regardless of whether the killing ‘method’ is deemed to be humane. It is precisely what Hitler’s Nazi Regime did with humans — they “EXTERMINATED” them for the twisted perceived benefit of society (the Supreme Aryan Race) under his demented social engineering notion of a genetically pure race of human beings.  (fn 3-6). The mass slaughter of perfectly healthy beings — merely because they are deemed to be rift-raft — a ‘nuisance’ — How does that ever, EVER come to be described as “Euthanasia?”

    Therefore the media and everyone else should STOP calling these Mass Extermination & Genocide crusades “Euthanasia” since that term absolutely does NOT apply. And the fact that this term does NOT apply is not a gray-area of uncertainty or a debatable point today any more than it was when Hitler deliberately and strategically abused the term to facilitate his Mass Extermination & Genocide agenda. Take a good hard look at these words — Mass Extermination & Genocide — because that is what humans have been doing to animals at kill-shelters — NOT “Euthanasia” as everyone is fraudulently claiming.

    Either this action is justifiable when we call it exactly what it is (Mass Extermination & Genocide) or it is NOT justifiable when we call it exactly what it is (Mass Extermination & Genocide). In either case, falsifying the accounts of what is taking place by deliberately using what, ipso facto, is a patently fraudulent, inaccurate counterfeit term (“Euthanasia“) to misrepresent what is going on, is most definitely morally and ethically and logically repulsive, wrong and logically\morally indefensible. If it is too horrible and too ugly and too disturbing to think about what it really is (Mass Extermination & Genocide) then clearly it is something humans should NOT be doing.

    We urge the media to STOP calling these Mass Extermination & Genocide crusades “Euthanasia.”   Just because some business or government entity attempts to defraud the media with a counterfeit term, does not mean the media is licensed or obliged to pass that fraud onto the general public as though it had legal tender status. We simply cannot afford to have the media, the Fourth Branch of Government, constantly falling asleep at the wheel, shirking its responsibility to the truth, sucking down every flim-flam sham counterfeit term that some fast-talking, sociopathic snake-oil salesman decides to panhandle — and then dispensing that fraudulent tripe to the public as though it was the Gospel truth. 98% of what humans consume from the media is NOT verbatim quotes, but rather, paraphrased summaries — it’s an editorial license to paraphrase. We implore the media to exercise an honest, ethical standard of human decency and refuse to paraphrase “Mass Extermination & Genocide” as “Euthanasia.” We urge the media to question those who dispense the fraudulent use of the term and to challenge the appropriateness of the term. And where it is necessary to include the inappropriate use of the term in a direct quote — the media should realize it is entirely appropriate, if not obligatory, to subsequently point out that the known facts are at odds with the authentic true meaning of that term.

    We urge the mass media — Please tell all news writers and reporters to STOP misusing and misapplying this term “Euthanasia” and call the routine wholesale slaughter of perfectly healthy animals what it really is — Mass Extermination.  STOP being the complicit hand-maidens of dishonest entities seeking to distort, conceal and falsify the truth in a determined effort to defraud and deceive the public.
            (see footnotes for authority and links below that provide correct, accurate lexical definition and use of the term “Euthanasia“).
     
    Sincerely,
    Reflecting Pool Discourse Blog

    Human Dishonesty Against Animals
    A Reflecting Pool Discourse Blog Website
    http://gbruce.com/reflect/?p=225


    The sub-heading for this CBS News whitewash story reads: “Mass Euthanization of Geese a Step in Goal of Clearing Geese Within 7 Miles of JFK and LaGuardia Airport.

     
     

    The Reflecting Pool Discourse Blog


     
  •    Tea Party’s “Shirley Sherrod Video Fraud”   

    Scales of Balanced Justice

    There are two kinds of Republicans: 1) Overt Tea Party supporters and, 2) In-the-closet Tea Party supporters who want a free ride without taking any risks. So to talk about the so-called “Tea Party” is to talk about all Republicans and the mentality they represent. And that mentality, which they espouse in a ‘proud as a peacock’ manner, is a self-centered “give me mine” the hell with the others — it’s every man for himself — “I am NOT my brother’s keeper” — kind of unregulated Darwinian ‘Survival of the Fittest’ Sarengetti Plains kind of economic struggle.

    For the Tea Party mentality, the very concept of the term “humanitarian” is nothing more than left-wing liberal code language for a socialist – communist government that would take from the rich to give to the poor — by their reckoning, a swindle because the “have-nots” are have-nots merely because they are fat, lazy and stupid. Therefore, the “have-nots” deserve their plight because they have created it for themselves via laziness and their general inferiority in functional abilities. The Tea Party view is “we shouldn’t let this inferior sector drag the rest of us down with them.” But in any event, even if the “have-nots” did not bring it on themselves, the Tea Party ideology takes the ‘Free Enterprise’ position that “It’s not my problem” and it’s not MY responsibility, therefore the government should not hold me responsible by funding assistance for them through MY tax dollars. Many call this Reaganomics. It is the bedrock position of every Republican and every Tea Party member. Given how anti-Christ — anti-Compassion — anti-caring this ideology is, one is hard-pressed to explain its overwhelming support by the vast majority of so-call Christian-right political ideologues. Perhaps it has to do with the distinction to be made between Christianity ‘as the spirit of Compassion’ versus the “Christianity as petrified dogma” garden variety weed which infests the Christian-right political mentality.

    Without going any further, it is easy to see the ‘fraud’ lurking inside the stealth premises of this ideology. First and foremost is the fact that the playing field is and always has been tilted in favor of the “haves” and against the “have-nots.” The “haves” get the lowest loan rates, the fewest number of toxic dump sites in their neighborhoods, the best schools, the highest per capita level of police protection, the highest salaries with the most time spent on the golf course, and the best health care. And wonder of wonders — the lion’s share of it is paid for by the “have-nots,” just as the southern slaves paid for the sumptuous lifestyles of southern whites 150 years ago.

    One might care to note that the Salvation Army Christmas bell-ringers invariably do NOT position themselves in front of the Macy’s or Lord & Taylor department stores, but instead go where the hearts are ‘open’ and not quite so self-centered — in front of the Kmarts and the Wal-marts, the dens of the poorer strata of society. The bell-ringers know well that the creed & dogma of the iron-fisted “It’s not my problem — I’m not my brother’s keeper” tightwads is not fertile territory for finding the selfless sharing hearts that open up wallets and acknowledge a connectedness and responsibility to others.

    There is much fraud and dishonesty hidden in the stealth Tea Party premises which prop-up their ideology. And by reason of these defects, their ideology does not have much power to persuade others. Those who are in the “haves” group tend to side with the Tea Party view for the practical reason of preserving their advantage as “haves.” And those who are in the “have-nots” group tend to oppose the Tea Party ideology because it, by definition, is calculated to benefit the “haves” at the expense of the “have-nots” by keeping the adverse lopsided ‘playing field’ in place, which in turn, will secure the “haves” group against erosion.

    Because of the inherent and obvious defects in the Tea Party ideology, they must, and quite often do, resort to fraudulent, deceptive means to increase support for their position from people who, had they not been duped, would never have found themselves supporting that Tea Party position. There is one recent and glaring incident that serves as a graphic example of this kind of Tea Party dupery — the Shirley Sherrod video tape fraud incident.

    Conservative website publisher Andrew Breitbart posted a heavily edited excerpt of a video purporting to show Shirley Sherrod making explicit admissions of being racist, and that video was quickly picked up by Fox News and posted. Sherrod was director of rural development for Georgia, a position within the U.S. Agriculture Department. The video excerpt purported to show that Sherrod admitted to treating white farmers unfairly because they were white.  (fn 1)

    USDA director Tom Vilsack immediately called for Sherrod’s resignation and without hesitation, Obama endorsed Vilsack’s decision. The NAACP President Benjamin Jealous swiftly and vocally followed suit, wholeheartedly endorsing Sherrod’s removal.  (fn 1)

    It turned out that the excerpt was deliberately torn out of its all-important, pivotal context in Sherrod’s March 2010 speech which it was lifted from. It turned out that Sherrod “was sharing this account as part of a story of transformation and redemption,” and that “In the full video, Ms. Sherrod says she realized that the dislocation of farmers is about ‘haves and have-nots.’ ‘It’s not just about black people, it’s about poor people’ ” Sherrod said in the full speech. “We have to get to the point where race exists but it doesn’t matter. ” It was just an anecdotal story about how Sherrod came face-to-face with her own racism and renounced it, rather than succumbing to it. Just the opposite position and image from what the Tea Party swindlers had fraudulently tried to portray.  (fn 1 & 2)

    But USDA director Tom Vilsack, the Obama administration and the NAACP were all sucker-punched by this deceitful, incomplete video excerpt, torn out of contact, which neither Vilsack, nor Obama nor the NAACP bothered to check-out or investigate, even though the Tea Party group that posted the video excerpt has a ‘notorious’ reputation and history for defrauding the public with ruses exactly like this one. Neither Vilsack, nor Obama nor the NAACP even bothered to contact Sherrod, the subject of the video, to hear her side of the story before prematurely and imprudently lashing out with virulent self-righteous indignation and condemnation statements against Sherrod.

    Once it was disclosed that everyone had been sucker-punched by yet another ruse Tea Party video sham, Vilsack , Obama and the NAACP had to swiftly retract their militant premature condemnations of Sherrod and proffer their deep, heart-felt apologies to her.  (fn 2)

    The haunting point of this sordid counterfeit Tea Party Republican episode deserves great emphasis. “If an ideological position has great merit, it does not need to rely on fraud, deceit and subterfuge to win over supporters.” This point needs to be conversely expressed as well. An ideology that relies on fraud, deceit and subterfuge to win over converts, does so because it has no merit of its own and is therefore incapable of prevailing in the open marketplace of ideas when it can ONLY rely on the truth.”

    What blistering irony, that the Tea Party purported champions of “Free Enterprise” and purportedly the chief advocates of government “non-interference” with the “Free Enterprise” private sector, would have molested and ‘interfered’ with the Free, Open “Marketplace of Ideas,” in such an extremely fraudulent and destructive way that it can only be described as “an act of sabotage.” And perhaps it’s a lesson learned about Dems being too overly eager to accommodate the disingenuous political right, whose obstructionist strategy is entirely consistent with such acts of bad-faith desperation.

    In short, the Tea Party Republicans “Played the Race Card” — the same swindlers who constantly and disingenuously accuse others of playing the race card for advantage, used a sham video excerpt in order to bash blacks under false pretenses. The NAACP’s expressed concerns about “Tea Party Racism” is now conclusively proven to be warranted — ‘proven’ by the Tea Party’s own indefensible conduct. That is a brutal irony that should not be lost by the voters in the November 2010 midterm elections.


    Footnote 1 Link: “NAACP ‘Snookered’ Over Video Of Former USDA Employee — CNN News Report — July 21, 201

     

    Footnote 2 Link: “Sherrod Offered New Job,” July 22, 2010

     

    The Reflecting Pool Discourse Blog