Something that has always bothered me, something I haven’t ever understood is during a court case when the prosecutor (or defendant) makes a statement that is clearly hurtful to the other side and the judge then asks the jury to disregard the information. Clearly, that’s impossible. And I know it’s a tactic used just so. But still, it bugs me. Why do I bring this up?
There are two articles in the New York Times Metro section today that I want to call some attention to. The first one is about a shoot and run. It took place in Brooklyn on Carroll Street. A Hasidic man was shot and killed through the window of his van while moving his car from one side of the street to the other to abide by the alternate side parking laws. Apparently, someone shot him and drove off. Now, the part that really got me was this line:
“The shooting of Mr. Klein, a Hasidic Orthodox Jew, immediately raised alarms in the neighborhood, which was convulsed by deadly racial unrest in 1991 after a Hasidic driver struck and killed a black boy. But police officials said that there was no indication that race had played any part in the shooting and that investigators had no description of the gunman.”
My question to the New York Times is why? 1991 was a long, long time ago. Why even print that? Why put the possibility in the reader’s mind that this could be about a hate crime? To me, this is just like that tactic used during a court cases. I see no good coming out of reporting some irrelevant 15-year-old crime. Can’t this just be an act of road rage?
The second article I want to talk about is one that could possibly invite some email hate crime onto myself.
I’m an animal lover. I have been since I was a child. People say they feel no pain, which they don’t know what they’re going through, that they’re only reason to exist is to feed our mouths. I do not believe any of this. That’s my prerogative.
I have mentioned before that I think I’d be happier if I didn’t feel this way. Some people believe in a God above, a deity, a higher power and that faith is recognized and usually accepted by everybody. When I say I care more about animals a lot of the time than I do many humans, I am often judged and/or outwardly scolded for saying such a thing.
People can care about their unborn babies, their idols, their bibles, and their unknowns. I wish to care about my animals. Someone has to, right? Someone has to keep the love distributed, right? There’s room for us all, right?
People can care about wearing their fur coats, eating another piece of veal (which they’ll shit out within 12 hours), dragging their dogs along the sidewalk because he’s walking too slowly. I’ll care about trying to stop them. If I can’t do that, I wish, at the very least for them to understand there is another side to all of this. Some of us don’t think it’s right, just like others don’t think it’s right to sin, abort babies, outlaw guns, use birth control, have pre-marital sex, whatever keeps their heart rate up. We all have our something.
Anyway, tangents aside, there’s an article about an unknown group of people who are threatening those working in labs (specifically one in New Jersey) that are testing on animals. (Here is the article.)
The NYT reports:
One federal counterterrorism official recently told Congress that animal rights groups posed the nation’s most serious domestic terrorism threat.
I am not sure what to say about that. While I do not believe in causing any one-person harm, there are times I find I sympathize with the animal rights people and get behind their cause. And I’m not sure how this could be considered terrorism and things like pro-life activists who threaten people every day are not. No, I do not wish to call in death threats to a scientists and their family. I will never do such a thing. I do, however, have repeated thoughts about pouring paint on a person wearing a fur coat. I do have this overwhelming desire to print out little cards that read: “YOU DISGUST ME” to those who wear fur or are in too much of a hurry and drag their dogs along the sidewalk. While it’s an individual’s choice to wear fur, they look like morons doing so. And I honestly judge them for it. Really.
I know this isn’t something wise to admit on the Internet, but I wish we were more kind to these creatures. If I really believed that we all loved humankind, if we stopped hurting our children, abusing the elderly, and shooting our neighbors over a parking spot, I could then get behind testing and killing countless animals to keep us alive longer.
Does this mean I’m going to go out and start bombing animal testing facilities? Not a chance in hell. But I might just donate some money to Peta. I might just print up those cards. I might just make more posts like this and welcome the possible onslaught of attacks.
There are people who don’t bomb abortion clinics but stand firmly behind the anti-abortion cause. I am one of those people when it comes to the animals.
Mihow 
Leave a reply to Charlie Cancel reply