GLAD!!!

Rabbits have relatively fragile backs and they are prone to injury, especially if the rabbit is not held or picked up correctly. Read any rabbit rescue group website, read any article on rabbit care, do an online search, read the literature of any adoption agency and you’ll get the same answer: “a rabbit can seriously injure themselves if they struggle too much when being picked up, so it is important to lift them carefully, supporting both their front and hind ends so that they do not twist around or kick out with their back legs and hurt their backs.” A broken back is very painful.

But when a rabbit was surrendered to Animal Care & Control of New York City (ACC) recently, and staff decided to kill the rabbit, the “experts” there did not heed this advice. Instead, the staff member picked the rabbit up by just the ears (ears which were filthy, probably infected, and painful to the touch to begin with), causing the rabbit, as one volunteer described it, to start “crying and coughing.” After possibly breaking the rabbit’s back, the staff member plunged the needle into the body and then tossed him away like yesterday’s trash.

But no one is going to complain. No one is going to come forward so that this staff member isn’t allowed to abuse other animals. Because if they do, they are the ones who will be punished. They are the ones who will be banned. Julie Bank, the ACC director, will not tolerate criticism. Neglect, cruelty, killing, that is endemic and acceptable. But the crime, according to Julie Bank, is bringing attention to it. The crime is to suggest that animals should not be treated that way. And if you commit that “crime,” your punishment is exile. Your punishment is that you will no longer be allowed to help animals. You have to sit by and helplessly watch as the very few animals you could do anything for at ACC are killed instead. You face Sophie’s Choice.

That is the choice faced by those who have to silently endure watching animals languishing in their own filth, going long periods with no food and water, and other basic care. That is the choice faced by those who face the heartbreak of watching animals suffer, with no medical care or pain medications of any kind. That is the choice faced by those who rescue animals and pay, out of their own pockets, enormous sums for medical care because ACC’s own neglect and institutional uncaring got the animals sick and then allowed them to deteriorate further before threatening to kill them if rescuers did not step up to the plate.

Julie Bank’s tenure in New York City has been marked by neglect, abuse, needless killing, and vindictive retribution to those call it into question and want it to end. She has singled out for retribution the animal lovers in order to protect the animal abusers. Despite the fanciful and dishonest claims by Maddie’s Fund, the Mayor’s Alliance, and the ASPCA, all of whom have conspired to hide the truth, the latter two in order to enrich themselves and all of whom deserve our fierce and unequivocal condemnation because of it, New York City is in chaos. And animals are suffering greatly.

Webster’s dictionary defines euthanasia as “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.” Unfortunately, at ACC, animals are not solely being killed because they are hopelessly sick or injured, but rather as “population control.” No one who cares one iota about animals would call this euthanasia. It is killing, pure and simple, and denying that mocks the cause of both the truth and of our humanity.

I have repeatedly and unceasingly called for an end to killing. It is not ethical. It is not necessary. It should not be legal. But today, it is done routinely. It is systematized. Our so-called “shelters” often do little more than kill animals. They are slaughterhouses. Without minimizing that, in an arena of killing, it is crucial that “shelters” at the very least meet the second prong of the analysis which requires killing to be done in “a relatively painless way.” As one agency has noted,

The euthanasia process must result in a painless, rapid unconsciousness followed by respiratory arrest, cardiac arrest and ultimate death. For euthanasia to be truly euthanasia, the animal should be as free from stress and anxiety as possible.

Unfortunately, the use of sodium pentobarbital, even if properly administered, does not in and of itself ensure a “humane” death. While method is one of the most important factors, nonetheless simply requiring lethal injection does not guarantee that the process is either humane or compassionate.

Shelters who kill, particularly those which kill large numbers of animals as ACC does, are obligated to ensure that employees are technically proficient, competent, skilled, compassionate, properly trained, and doing everything in their power to make sure the animals are as free from stress and anxiety as possible. A “relatively painless” death can only occur in an environment where sensitivity, compassion, skill and environment all combine with efforts to “minimize distress and anxiety,” as required by the American Veterinary Medical Association’s (2000) Panel on Euthanasia.

A former manager in one of the nation’s largest animal control departments stated that,

 

[E]uthanizing requires an enormous amount of compassion, kindness and emotional strength. During euthanasia I witnessed little care toward the animals. Considering this was to be the last contact the animal would have with the real world I found this rather disappointing.

 

Sadly, this is true at ACC. But it more than true. ACC appears deliberately trying to swing the pendulum as far as possible in the other direction to make it as difficult, uncaring, and painful as possible for the animals.

How do we change this?

On January 21, at a sold-out conference in New York City, I intend to tell people not only how communities across the country have achieved No Kill, what programs are necessary, how to increase adoptions, and what standard to hold themselves up to, but also what experience has shown to be the truth: that if they want to achieve a No Kill New York City, they need to elevate experience above hope, reality above foolish sentimentality that we can reform those who do not want to be reformed, and fight. A fight is what has created No Kill in other communities and a fight is what it will take in NYC.

Unfortunately, things just got more complicated. I had hoped my visit to New York City would be a source for greater lifesaving. Julie Bank, however, appears intent to turn it into a source for more killing. One of the formerly scheduled speakers at the day-long seminar, Peter McKosky of Empty Cages Collective, was threatened with being banned if he said anything critical of ACC at the event. The irony is that Peter never intended to spend his time criticizing ACC, but empowering New Yorkers to save more feral cats by reevaluating how they did their work with cats in the field and cats in the shelter. Nonetheless, the threat was the last of a long line of abuses he and his organization and, of course, the animals he has tried to save have suffered at the hands of ACC under the “leadership” of Julie Bank and he asked for my assistance. These abuses are outlined in the following letter to Julie Bank which I wrote on behalf of the No Kill Advocacy Center:

Dear Ms. Bank,

 

We have been informed that you are threatening to violate the civil rights of P.J. McKosky who runs the Brooklyn-based rescue group, Empty Cages Collective. Specifically, you stated that if Mr. McKosky says anything critical about Animal Care & Control of New York City (ACC) at a January 21 conference on how to reform the troubled New York City pound system where he is a speaker/panelist, that his right to rescue animals from ACC will be rescinded. This is an illegal attempt to intimidate and silence Mr. McKosky which cannot be allowed to stand. Rescuers like Mr. McKosky are the voice of the animals and the conscience of the community. Silencing rescuers allows ACC to continue neglecting animals and killing them needlessly.

 

 

In 2007, the No Kill Advocacy Center successfully sued the County of Los Angeles for retaliating against a volunteer who publicized inhumane conditions in that facility. We are, therefore, putting you on notice that any attempt to remove Mr. McKosky’s ability to rescue animals from ACC will not be tolerated. Federal law (42 U.S.C. Section 1983) prohibits a state or municipal government to take action designed to prevent or intimidate people from exercising their First Amendment rights, or punish them for doing so, and there can be no dispute that complaining about inhumane conditions at animal shelters is a constitutionally protected right.

 

 

While New York City has claimed that ACC is an independent non-profit, federal courts have ruled that applicable civil rights laws apply to a private agency performing the function of a municipal animal shelter. In reality, however, ACC is a government agency. It was created by the Giuliani administration, has a singular mission of running animal control for the City, operates under city-owned and controlled facilities, and has a governing structure dominated by the City. While ACC was formed as a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporation, it is controlled by the Mayor and Health Commissioner.

 

 

As you well know, Mr. McKosky has saved countless animals that your agency intended to kill. When the ASPCA recently returned an asymptomatic cat who tested positive for Feline Leukemia to be killed at ACC, Mr. McKosky saved the cat’s life. When a small puppy contracted parvovirus and canine influenza, he saved the dog, incurring almost $9,000 in medical bills because ACC failed to keep the shelter clean, failed to protect the puppy from disease, and beyond prescribing some antibiotics, refused to treat him thereafter. When a sick, dehydrated cat needed heat support and fluids which ACC refused to provide, he saved the cat even as the cat went into shock because of lack of prompt and necessary care. In addition, as one of the few rescuers who also saves avian and other non-dog and cat species, he has rescued animals such as a chicken who was allowed to languish in pain with a fractured wing with no medical care of any kind provided at ACC. And he has tried to rescue others who died in your agency’s custody, before he could save them, because of lack of care. If these conditions existed in a private home, the individuals involved would have been subject to charges of neglect and/or animal cruelty.

 

 

Ms. Bank, ACC fails to employ basic standards of care to keep animals healthy and it fails to provide prompt and necessary veterinary care, including pain medication. The cost in animal suffering and animal lives is staggering. But in order to silence those who want to bring these practices to an end, ACC has also created a culture of fear among those who truly care about animals (the volunteers and rescuers) that if they speak out, they will be banned.

 

 

In 2010, for example, you unveiled a new volunteer policy that threatened to expel volunteers for doing so. Specifically, the policy stated that volunteers may not “publicly criticiz[e]” or cast the agency “in a negative light” without permission from ACC. It also prohibited them from “[p]osting [criticism] on any internet site such as Facebook, My Space, Craig’s List, etc.” It further stated that “[v]olunteers are prohibited from distributing their personal information, or opinions in regards [to ACC] volunteers, staff, animals, and/or policies to the public.” Those who do, the policy stated, “will be terminated.” That policy came after complaints by volunteers and others about inhumane conditions at ACC including animals wallowing in their own waste, cats and kittens going without food and water for extended periods of time, dogs not being properly socialized, ongoing killing of healthy animals, and failure to treat medical conditions.

 

 

To downplay the severity of these problems, ACC continues to deceive New York City taxpayers by falsely claiming to adopt out over 20,000 animals a year. In actuality, ACC adopts out a small percentage of that total. It is the work of organizations like Empty Cages Collective that is saving the majority of these animals. Without their intervention, ACC would have put those animals to death, as the agency threatens to do every day unless Mr. McKosky and others like him save their lives.

 

 

Yet, it appears you are willing to casually dismiss those contributions and put all the animals he saves to death if he tries to better their plight by exercising his First Amendment rights. This is not only intolerable, it also illegal. 

If Julie Bank wants a fight, a fight is what we’ll give her.

Dear Ms. Bank,

 

 

We have been informed that you are threatening to violate the civil rights of P.J. McKosky who runs the Brooklyn-based rescue group, Empty Cages Collective. Specifically, you stated that if Mr. McKosky says anything critical about Animal Care & Control of New York City (ACC) at a January 21 conference on how to reform the troubled New York City pound system where he is a speaker/panelist, that his right to rescue animals from ACC will be rescinded. This is an illegal attempt to intimidate and silence Mr. McKosky which cannot be allowed to stand. Rescuers like Mr. McKosky are the voice of the animals and the conscience of the community. Silencing rescuers allows ACC to continue neglecting animals and killing them needlessly.

 

 

In 2007, the No Kill Advocacy Center successfully sued the County of Los Angeles for retaliating against a volunteer who publicized inhumane conditions in that facility. We are, therefore, putting you on notice that any attempt to remove Mr. McKosky’s ability to rescue animals from ACC will not be tolerated. Federal law (42 U.S.C. Section 1983) prohibits a state or municipal government to take action designed to prevent or intimidate people from exercising their First Amendment rights, or punish them for doing so, and there can be no dispute that complaining about inhumane conditions at animal shelters is a constitutionally protected right.

 

 

While New York City has claimed that ACC is an independent non-profit, federal courts have ruled that applicable civil rights laws apply to a private agency performing the function of a municipal animal shelter. In reality, however, ACC is a government agency. It was created by the Giuliani administration, has a singular mission of running animal control for the City, operates under city-owned and controlled facilities, and has a governing structure dominated by the City. While ACC was formed as a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporation, it is controlled by the Mayor and Health Commissioner.

 

 

As you well know, Mr. McKosky has saved countless animals that your agency intended to kill. When the ASPCA recently returned an asymptomatic cat who tested positive for Feline Leukemia to be killed at ACC, Mr. McKosky saved the cat’s life. When a small puppy contracted parvovirus and canine influenza, he saved the dog, incurring almost $9,000 in medical bills because ACC failed to keep the shelter clean, failed to protect the puppy from disease, and beyond prescribing some antibiotics, refused to treat him thereafter. When a sick, dehydrated cat needed heat support and fluids which ACC refused to provide, he saved the cat even as the cat went into shock because of lack of prompt and necessary care. In addition, as one of the few rescuers who also saves avian and other non-dog and cat species, he has rescued animals such as a chicken who was allowed to languish in pain with a fractured wing with no medical care of any kind provided at ACC. And he has tried to rescue others who died in your agency’s custody, before he could save them, because of lack of care. If these conditions existed in a private home, the individuals involved would have been subject to charges of neglect and/or animal cruelty.

 

 

Ms. Bank, ACC fails to employ basic standards of care to keep animals healthy and it fails to provide prompt and necessary veterinary care, including pain medication. The cost in animal suffering and animal lives is staggering. But in order to silence those who want to bring these practices to an end, ACC has also created a culture of fear among those who truly care about animals (the volunteers and rescuers) that if they speak out, they will be banned.

 

 

In 2010, for example, you unveiled a new volunteer policy that threatened to expel volunteers for doing so. Specifically, the policy stated that volunteers may not “publicly criticiz[e]” or cast the agency “in a negative light” without permission from ACC. It also prohibited them from “[p]osting [criticism] on any internet site such as Facebook, My Space, Craig’s List, etc.” It further stated that “[v]olunteers are prohibited from distributing their personal information, or opinions in regards [to ACC] volunteers, staff, animals, and/or policies to the public.” Those who do, the policy stated, “will be terminated.” That policy came after complaints by volunteers and others about inhumane conditions at ACC including animals wallowing in their own waste, cats and kittens going without food and water for extended periods of time, dogs not being properly socialized, ongoing killing of healthy animals, and failure to treat medical conditions.

 

 

To downplay the severity of these problems, ACC continues to deceive New York City taxpayers by falsely claiming to adopt out over 20,000 animals a year. In actuality, ACC adopts out a small percentage of that total. It is the work of organizations like Empty Cages Collective that is saving the majority of these animals. Without their intervention, ACC would have put those animals to death, as the agency threatens to do every day unless Mr. McKosky and others like him save their lives.

 

 

Yet, it appears you are willing to casually dismiss those contributions and put all the animals he saves to death if he tries to better their plight by exercising his First Amendment rights. This is not only intolerable, it also illegal. 

If Julie Bank wants a fight, a fight is what we’ll give her.

Top 5 Reasons to Go Meat-Free on Mondays in 2012

Meat-free eating went mainstream in 2011. Whether it was former President Bill Clinton announcing his plant-based diet or Ellen DeGeneres launching an online clearinghouse of vegetarian resources, veggie eating has never been more popular.

Part of this status is owed to theMeatless Mondays movement, which encourages people to eat meat-free one day a week.

Here are the top five reasons to include Meatless Mondays in your 2012 resolutions.

Five: It’s a diet that sticks

So many New Year’s resolution diets fall by the wayside come February. Lots of people eat healthy for a few weeks following the holiday overload, but then quickly resume their normal eating habits. Because eating meat-free one day a week is such an easy thing to do, it’s one New Year’s diet that you can continue all year long.

Four: Green is good

Raising, transporting, slaughtering, and processing farm animals (and growing all the feed they need) requires a lot more natural resources than creating plant-based foods. According to the Sierra Club, if Americans reduced our meat consumption by just 20 percent, it’d have the same environmental benefit as everyone switching from a standard sedan to a hybrid vehicle. 

Three: Your taste buds will thank you

Resolving to eat meat-free one day each week will introduce your taste buds to new foods. From tasty plant-based products like veggie dogs and black bean burgers to ethnic foods like Thai tofu curry and the wide variety of meat-free dishes offered at Indian, Ethiopian, and Japanese restaurants, you’ll discover a whole new world of delicious food out there just waiting to be enjoyed.

Two: Your body will thank you

Meat is often heavy in cholesterol and saturated fats, whereas vegetarian foods tend not to be. Compare the protein content on a package of veggie dogs and a package of hot dogs, and you’ll see that plant-based products usually have the same—or even more—protein than their animal-based counterparts. You can get all the good stuff, without as much of the bad stuff. That makes it easier to drop some inches from your waistline and reduce your risk of heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, and other serious health problems.  

One: Animals will thank you

More than one million animals are slaughtered each hour in the United States, and concern over how the vast majority of them are mistreated on factory farms has reached new heights. From chickens and pigs being crammed into tiny cages to animals being pumped full of antibiotics and hormones to make them grow unnaturally quickly, there’s widespread animal cruelty in industrial agribusiness.

If each American abstained from meat just on Mondays, roughly 1.4 billion animals could be spared factory farming each year. That’s a lot less suffering.

Sign up now to get a free weekly meat-free recipe to help you keep your resolution. Happy new year!

Watch this video. 

Online shopping is a great way to buy holiday gifts, but not when it comes to getting a companion animal. In our latest undercover investigation, released today, HSUS investigators and attorneys dug into the world of Internet puppy sellers and found not only the underlying cruelty of puppy mills, but also deceptive sales tactics aimed at making sure that consumers can’t resist that adorable photo on the computer screen.

Purebred Breeders LLC, a company based in Florida, is believed to be the largest Internet puppy broker, selling more than 20,000 puppies a year according to a whistleblower who contacted us. The company attracted our attention after we heard heartbreaking complaints about sick and dying puppies arriving by air from all over the country—puppies covered in feces and urine, many sick with giardia, parvovirus, and upper respiratory infections including pneumonia. (Read some of the complaints.)

The HSUS
Dogs from this puppy mill were sold via PBB websites.

What we found led our in-house attorneys to collaborate with the Florida consumer justice law firm Leopold-Kuvin to file a lawsuit on behalf of HSUS members and other consumers against Purebred Breeders. The lawsuit alleges that Purebred Breeders uses deceptive advertising to dupe unsuspecting consumers into purchasing dogs from inhumane commercial breeding facilities known as puppy mills. This morning, Lisa Myers of NBC’s Today Show aired an exposé with our video footage from our investigation to show how this company reaps enormous profits by misleading the public about the origins and health of the puppies it sells.

Purebred Breeders claims on its websites to use only the most responsible, ethical breeders, and specifically claims to oppose puppy mills, but our investigators found otherwise. We visited six breeders used by the company and found inhumane conditions at all of them. We also discovered that Purebred Breeders maintains about 800 Web domains intended to mislead consumers into believing they are dealing with local breeders—so, for instance, if you search for boxer puppies in Maryland, the first hit takes you to a PBB website even though you may think you’re dealing with a local, Maryland breeder. A dog purchased from PBB can come from any puppy mill in the country.

And the deception goes further. Our whistleblower informed us that when speaking with potential buyers, PBB salespeople are instructed to speak as if they know the puppies and the breeders personally. They are not supposed to reveal that the puppy will be shipped in the cargo area of a plane from the facility until the deal is sealed.

Purebred Breeders makes most of its profits during the holiday season. Please share our video, the Today Show piece, or Jeff Burnside’s NBC Miami piece on the subject with people concerned about the welfare of animals and ask them to share it with others to spread the word. Purebred Breeders has already caused enormous pain and suffering. Let’s make sure people stop buying dogs online so that this deceptive company and others cannot continue doing business this way. You can also help by letting federal regulators know how you feel about this.

And sadly… it seems that no one is willing to meet in the middle. But I’d really like to change that.

Before I go any further, let me just say this: controversy, arguments, and drama are not my goals. While I’m sure that today’s post will somehow drive these things, that’s certainly not my mission, and I really want no part in it.

I only decided to write about this topic today, because I’m tired of the endless fighting between so many members of the animal community. I’ve witnessed so much of it lately, and it’s just so counterproductive. 

For the most part, I try to stay out of the drama as much as possible… I’d rather focus on doing the right thing and making a difference. But obviously, I care about this cause, so I feel the need to take a stand against all of this useless, back-and-forth attacking that’s been going around. So, here goes…

This negative behavior only hurts my cause –OUR cause. It’s nothing more than a distraction from the real issues, and honestly, it only hinders our ability to take the positive actions needed to resolve those issues. And further… let’s just be honest… people already think that we ”animal freaks” are crazy enough as it is.Should we really prove them right??

No matter what you believe, or which ”side” you’re on… if you truly care about the animals, then you should care to end their suffering. Period. 

So… even when you don’t completely agree with the way that another person/group does things… if they’re trying to make things better for animals, then you should at least be thankful for that! Maybe they don’t always do things ”your way,” but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t doing the very best they can with what they have. ”Your way” may not work for everyone… and your way isn’t the ONLY way. I don’t care who you are. 

But that’s the problem here. Too many people stand firmly at one extreme or the other, and so few are actually willing to acknowledge that their way isn’t the only way. 

A lot of people have asked for my opinions on the following questions: What is the problem? What is the solution? Well, in short, here’s my general view: There isn’t just one problem to blame. There isn’t just one solution to claim. And there isn’t just one way to win this game. 

Obviously, I could get much more specific on each of those topics. But no matter what, I’d never claim that my views represent the animal community as a whole. I’d never claim that my view of any issue is the only way that issue can be viewed. I’d never state that my perception of the solution is the only perception that matters. 

If that were true… if I really had all the answers, then I can promise you this much: I’d have this whole thing fixed… by noon tomorrow. Just in time for lunch.

And if you had all the answers, wouldn’t you do the same? 

That’s why we need each other. That’s why I won’t simply dismiss everyone else’s input, and only value my own. Because regardless of what I believe to be true, I’m not trying to solve this problem alone. I want help. I need help. 

I try my very best to see all sides. I try to acknowledge each and every factor that contributes toward the problem, while appreciating each and every effort that contributes toward the solution. 

That’s why I refuse to take the approach of blaming just one group for this entire animal crisis, because common sense tells me that multiple parties must be responsible for a problem this large. 

If you ask me who’s to blame, here’s my opinion: Is society to blame? Yep, society absolutely plays a very big role in the animal crisis. Are the shelters to blame? Yep, the shelters have a very significant role as well.Are breeders to blame? Yep, breeders also provide a nice-big-honking contribution to this massive, heartbreaking problem. 

I try to acknowledge each component, because the problem can’t be solved unless all of the underlying issues are considered and remedied. A problem this complex just can’t be simplified into one single contributing factor. 

For example, simply blaming the shelters… well, that’ll get you nowhere fast. Sure, there are some terrible shelters out there, but it’s very easy to simply judge and blame the shelters for their actions, when you have such little understanding of the unique struggles they face… or why they face those things.

But here’s the real kicker: when you boldly (and in my opinion, wrongfully) blame only the shelters (or anyone) for the entire problem, then you can be certain of at least one thing: those shelters won’t be willing to hearanything else that you have to say. And there went your chance… to actually help them fix it. 

The same goes for the solution, or should I say solutions (plural). There are many different ways to reach the ultimate goal here, and no single component can possibly fix everything. But each and every positive factor can play a necessary and critical role in getting us that much closer to (what should be) a shared goal. And each and every one of those factors is needed, in order to truly make a difference.

Another example: some people will argue that spay/neuter isn’t necessary in reaching the goal of ending euthanasia. Well, in my opinion, it’s senseless and reckless to deny the importance of this critical piece of the solution. But regardless, do I believe that spay/neuter the only solution? Of course not. There are so many other factors needed here: education, legislation, regulation, and so forth. 

We all need to acknowledge and accept that there are many causes for this problem, and then work toward the achievable solutions… together. There isn’t just one problem. There isn’t just one solution. There isn’t just one person who has all the answers. 

I think it’s important that we all try to step outside of our own thoughts and feelings… and attempt to meet somewhere in the middle. This all-or-nothing attitude just isn’t benefiting our cause in any way. I certainly don’t have all the answers. Neither do you. That’s why we need each other. That’s why all of these animals…need ALL of us. 

One final note, there’s a BIG difference between choosing to respectfully accept differences of opinion… and quietly accepting injustice. If any organization is NOT actively helping to end the problem or contribute toward the solution, then no– that’s not okay, and NONE of us should stand for it. 

Emelie Ehn

Ignorance refers to the state of being uninformed, unaware, or uneducated. This condition plagues our society, and its impact is anything but ”funny.”

However, a lot of humor can be found within the words and actions of the ignorant. And it just so happens… that I’m in the mood to laugh today. So, here we go…

I write in an attempt to educate, inspire, and motivate. a lot of non-rescue, non-dog-freak people come here to read what I have to say. I won’t lie… that’s pretty awesome. That’s how views change, actions change, and quite honestly… the world begins to change.

However, there are those few… shall we say… asshats, that come here just to argue. Now, trust me, I’m totally willing to have an educated debate with anyone who wants to challenge my knowledge and experience.  
Bring. It. On.

But when common sense, rationale, and basic awareness are… how should I say this… completely freaking absent, then the ”educated” piece of that debate puzzle is… well,  impossible. 

Here’s the deal: If I’m not educated on a topic, then I certainly don’t try to prove my ignorance by forcing a completely ridiculous, childish, I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I debate on the subject. I’ll gladly keep my mouth shut to preserve my dignity. 

But others don’t seem to share my views on humility. Instead, they’ll wave that Ignorance Pride flag high in the sky, for everyone to see. Good for y’all. Humiliation looks good on ya. 

Ignorance is one thing. I can certainly accept that most people exhibit some level of unawareness in one area or another. But the people who truly amaze me, are those who actually boast about their ignorance. They’re not only proud of their limited, misinformed views, but they’ll actually state their opinions as fact, in a ridiculous, lengthy argument about something that they honestly know nothing about. 

And here’s the best part: They’re too ridiculous to realize… that their uneducated rants actually do an incredible job of disproving whatever useless point they wish to make. It’s simply freaking brilliant.  

Let’s look at some classic examples of Ignorance Pride in action:

Exhibit A: ”I know that I’m right. I found this info on Google.”

You’re kidding?! Google!!! Oh my goodness… that’s totally the same as scientific research! And from what I hear, the ability to perform Google searches requires a very rare level of ”experience” and ”expertise.” You should totally stick that bad boy on your resume. ”Googler.”

Exhibit B: ”I know what I’m talking about. I heard it straight from my friend, who heard it directly from a friend-of-a-friend-of-a-grandmaw’s-uncle’s-brother’s-cousin’s-sister’s-aunt’s-mama’s-friend-of-a-friend. It happened to him.”  

Wow, really?! That’s pretty much the truest story of all time! Everyone knows that you can always trust stories that were passed down from those random, unknown friends of someone else’s grandmaw’s sister’s cousin’s friends. It’s so the same as being there to see it. Always holds up in court. 

Exhibit C: ”I know this is true. It’s all over the news.” 

Oh my gosh, totally! That definitely makes it true! Plus, watching the news while eating a Hot Pocket cantotally make you a qualified expert on the subject. Did you see when the media reported that Elvis is still alive? So informative! I also saw Breaking News that the troops found Osama bin Laden… about 50 times before they actually did. I believe it. Then, I heard something about Paris Hilton sleeping with an alien. She totally did.  

Here’s some shocking info for ya: Google does not an expert make. Hear-say does not equal first-hand experience. Media coverage does not ensure truth. 

But ignorance promises ignorance… that’s for damn sure. And these folks are certainly well-versed in that department. If only everyone had that jackwagon mindset… we could still be living in those bad-ass caves.Bummer.

Thanks to the delusional ignorance of these jink-jankers, the world is way less awesome than it could be. But here’s the good news: We’re way smarter than them, so the ignorant can never win… unless we let them.  

And in the meantime, we can laugh… 

Fel med bilduppladdningen!

Shelter at Louisiana Prison Offers Second Chances for Pets and People