Karma: Why It's Time To Re-evaluate Our Relationship With The Animals Around Us

I’d like to share a belief I have with you. My goal is not to try to convince you to believe what I believe, but to explain my belief as a concept in the hopes that it might resonate with you, or more importantly, resonate with those who might not necessarily view the relationship between humans and animals in what I feel is the proper light.

You see, I believe that while we can see the glimmer of intelligence in many of the creatures we share this planet with, ultimately, in the end, it is us, as humans, who are responsible for many of the behaviors and incidents that lead to the unnecessary demise of far too many animals. I also believe that as the obvious top species on the planet, it is our responsibility to properly care for and ensure the survival of each of the other species. We have been given the gift of intelligence, for whatever reason, and it is up to us to use that intelligence to be the stewards of those species who were given less intelligence, even if it would appear only slightly less at times.

We encroach on the habitat of a coyote, strip its native land, put up houses, then blame the coyote when it attacks our small little domesticated dogs when it is feeling particularly territorial or hungry. We do the same with bears and other large predatory animals the world over. We also do the same with creatures as small as insects, though it’s the bears, wild canines and large cats that tend to result in us getting on high horses and demanding justice when animals inconvenience our lives.

A case in point made a few headlines where I live, here in Orange County, California. The story was about a husky named Karma. Karma, unfortunately, spent a good part of her life with humans that were addicted to drugs. These humans would sometimes forget to feed Karma, leaving this poor dog starving. We as humans have domesticated these animals and brought them into our sterile habitats where they are then reliant upon us for food. So, when poor Karma finally was able to get free of the humans that had forgotten to feed her, she went out on the hunt and killed two domesticated cats. Now, I don’t see how any single person on this planet could blame a starving dog for killing and eating whatever it could find to eat as soon as it was loose. What in the hell else would a dog do in that situation? Go scrape against the back door of a pasta restaurant like in a Disney movie?

So, who is to blame in this scenario where these poor cats were killed by Karma? Do we blame the cats’ owners? The cats? Karma? No, I would argue that it was Karma’s owners that were too busy being the victims of human circumstance to feed the dog and therefore, should bear the blame for the dead cats...not the dog.

Do you see what I am getting at here? Do you see how this situation was created completely by humans, stemming from our insistence on the domestication of animals and our insistence on our right to have animals as pets no matter how careless we might be? Yet, somehow, when our idiocy and lack of forethought result in an animal reverting back to it’s native, instinctive ways, all of the sudden there is a group of humans ready to blame the animal instead of the humans who put the animal in that situation.

You keep a python in the house. You forget to feed it, or lock it in its tank, so it gets out, strangles you at night while you are sleeping, then eats you. I am sorry, but there is only one living entity on this planet to blame for your death in that scenario, and it is you.

Sadly, the dead cats were not to be the end of Karma’s story. It turns out that at one point she got out of her yard again and ran towards a lady that was carrying a child. The lady was not injured, nor was the child, though the lady did have to spray Karma with water to get her to stop.

Fortunately, for Karma, neither the incident with the cats or the lady carrying the child resulted in her being taken away, but that, unfortunately, also left Karma still in the care of her owners. That was until one day when someone reported that Karma’s owners were involved in a domestic dispute. Police officers were dispatched to the home, resulting in the state taking four children, and Karma, out of the home. Once in custody, Karma was DNA tested and it was determined that she had traces of wolf DNA. This led Animal Control Services to believe she could not be vaccinated to their standards, which led them to decide the best thing to do was to kill Karma.

Animal Control Services retroactively scored the incident with the cats as Karma’s first strike, the incident with the lady and the child as her second strike, and the wolf DNA as her third strike. So, to quote the late great Robin Harris, “Gotta go! Gotta go!”

Let’s pause here for just a second. So, you have a dog that is living among us and in the care of humans because of our insistence on the domestication of the species and our insistence on our right to keep them as pets in our very own homes, amongst our neighbors; a dog that was not fed for long periods at a time and then went out and hunted and ate because it was starving; a dog that was obviously not cared for properly by humans that then frightened, but did not physically harm a lady who was carrying a child. And who is to blame for all of this? Of course, the dog, right? Who is the one that should have their life cut short? Obviously, it should be the dog. And who remains absolutely unaccountable for all of this? That’s right, the humans.

Poor Karma’s case even went in front of a judge, but even after reviewing the situation, the judge let the kill order stand, and Karma was to be snuffed out for nothing more than being a dog. It was then, fortunately, that Karma’s case was taken up by one of our county supervisors, Todd Spitzer. Todd brought Karma’s case before the other county supervisors because he also understood that Karma being Karma was just not Karma’s fault.

So, Todd stood up before his fellow supervisors and said that we as humans who will act like humans cannot kill a dog for being a dog. Todd said that Karma’s wolf DNA was the same wolf DNA that lingers in every dog that we’ve domesticated. Todd even said that there was a plan in place to take Karma out of our neighborhoods and send her to a sanctuary where she could run with other huskies and just be a dog – about as close to the wild as you could get.

And what happened? All of the other four country supervisors sat on their hands and would not second Todd’s motion to save Karma. Todd pleaded his case but at the end of the night, Karma was still heading to doggie heaven despite the fact a place at the sanctuary, far away from us, had been secured.

County Animal Control Services argued that Karma was a danger to the world – to literally every single human on the planet - and that simply sending her to the sanctuary was not an option. They felt she had to be killed so that all of us would be safe from a dog that was much more doggier than all the other dogs we’ve domesticated. Sounds pretty asinine, doesn’t it?

Well, I’ll spare you some of the long-winded details, but long story short, Todd Spitzer made a big enough stink that he finally got some of his fellow supervisors on board and they eventually voted to spare poor Karma’s life. Now, Karma is going to the sanctuary and hopefully will find some humans that will treat her far better than her owners, a judge, and some Animal Control Services folks that probably shouldn’t be the ones deciding which animals live or die.

But the point of Karma’s tale, much like that of so many other animals whose lives are affected by humans, is that instead of blaming the animals for following their natural instincts, we should take a much closer look at the human instinct to not blame ourselves for anything that is our doing, ever. It is time for us to take a more reasonable and understanding stance when it comes to dealing with inconvenient human/animal interactions that are ultimately the result of our domestication of animals and our encroachment on their natural habitats. It is time that we start acting as the stewards of these animals that we were obviously designated to be.

Photo by Anoir Chafik via Pexels

A Little Insight Into How Government Spends: Widening Of The 405 Freeway

Here in Southern California, we have this wonderful monument to the achievement of the humans called the Interstate 405, or “the God-damned 405” to the locals. It runs from mid-Orange County right up through Los Angeles County into the San Fernando Valley. It was originally designed to be a bypass to the heavily congested Los Angeles-area portion of Interstate 5 that runs from Mexico to Canada through California, Oregon and Washington. But, if you know anything about Southern California, you know there are two cars for every person and a God-given right to never carpool so we have congested the crap out of the bypass artery too. As a result, we are continually widening the 405.  In fact, since the Orange County section of the 405 opened in 1969 as an actual Interstate, the 405 has been widened time and time again. It literally seems like as soon as we finish adding a lane, we start adding the next lane. Adding a lane in each direction one at a time, each new lane basically becoming obsolete by the time it is finished.

Each time a widening is needed, there is wrangling among Orange County officials, transportation budgets, city councils and citizens. The most recent widening project proposals even included the possibility of adding toll lanes to the 405. Pulled from a recent newsletter from one of the County Supervisors, here are the options that were being considered:

Option 1: Add one general purpose lane in each direction between Costa Mesa and the County line in Seal Beach (14 miles from SR-73 to I-605) at a cost of $1.3 billion that is already fully funded.

Option 2: Added two general purpose lanes in each direction with an approximate $100 million funding gap that raises concerned that trying to find $100 million could potentially jeopardize other scheduled freeway projects, such as upcoming I-5 improvements.

Option 3: Add one general purpose lane in each direction and one high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane in each direction. In addition, the current high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane would have been converted into an HOT lane to create a two-lane toll facility (“managed lanes”), similar to the 91 Express Lanes. Toll revenue bonds would have helped fund this $1.7 million project.

So, government, in it's infinite wisdom, has decided that Option 1 is the way to go. Our existing toll roads and toll lanes are not turning out to be as profitable as everyone thought they were going to be, so I can understand their reservation about Option 3, though I must admit that when stuck on the 405, I sure as hell would be willing to pay $5 to get into a lane that is actually moving.

So, even with Option 3 tossed out, when you look at Option 1 and Option 2, I find myself a little surprised, yet at the same time completely not surprised, that government is going with Option 1.

Government is going to add one lane in each direction to the 405 from the 73 to the 605 at a cost of $1.3 billion with the entire cost completely covered.  For just $100 million more – that’s $1.4 billion dollars instead of $1.3 billion – government could add a second lane in each direction at the same exact time.

I think all of us, as well as our County Officials, are familiar with the concept of a volume discount, where by buying more at the same time, you save money over buying the same amount at two separate times. One lane for $1.3 billion or two lanes for $1.4 billion is a hell of a volume discount!

I understand that the $100 million is not funded right now, so government would need to come up with the money somewhere, but government seems to be able to find billions and billions of dollars to waste nationwide each and every year. I am sure one of the most lucrative counties in the country could come up with a mere $100 million, right?

The worst thing about this lack of desire on the part of County Officials to try to find this $100 million is that if history is an indication of the future, as soon as this lane is done, we’re going to need another lane and within a matter of a few short years, we’ll be building that additional lane under a new construction project that is definitely going to cost a hell of a lot more than the $100 million that we could spend now. 

So, a government that seems to have no problem spending and spending, and spending frivolously at that, won’t spend $100 million today to save $1.3 billion, or probably even more than that, ten years from now. In what world does this make sense?  Definitely not the world that we idiot taxpayers have to live in!  We, unlike government, have to make sound and common sense financial decisions because our future income is not guaranteed by law or and ability to jail someone for refusing to provide us with our income.

The single largest threat to government is a lack of government growth and the single largest threat to government growth is efficiency and common sense. I believe, whether intentional or not, this is why government opts to spend 13 times more money down the road on a future project than make a sound financial decision today.

A Perfect Waste Of A Damned Good Shark

I know that most of you, especially the ones who live in Southern California, may have already heard about the recent harvesting of an 11-foot shortfin mako shark that weighed 1,300 pounds from the ocean off Huntington Beach by a group of fishermen from Texas, but I wanted to use this occasion to once again get up on that proverbial soapbox that this wonderful invention called the Internet has given us. Thank you, Al Gore.

As some of you may know, I spent a period of time as an amateur marine biologist, taking courses, working at aquariums, and heading out on research vessels from time to time. Some of you may also recall the story I love to tell about the time I got to see a 17-foot great white shark that was caught by some fishermen off San Pedro while I was working at the Cabrillo Aquarium, where I helped care for a number of much smaller and less sinister sharks. To this day, I still donate money to some of our Southern California aquariums and oceanic causes I believe in.

That being said, quite honestly, when I read this story, it really bothered me. Let me explain. While you won’t catch me passing up on the wonderful meat products that nature has to offer us humans on very many occasions, it’s not like we’re running out of cows, chickens and pigs any time soon, but things like whales and sharks are a different story. While some populations are rebounding, others are still in decline and under threat of extinction, so killing them just for fun might not be a great idea. Wow, now I sound like the Greenpeace people.

Don’t get me wrong, I at times think about, perhaps even struggle with, the fact that my chicken sandwich, cheeseburger, and the bacon I put on them or eat as a side dish, used to be a living, breathing creature, but I handle it. It is much easier when you never have to go out and meet the animal that you’re eating or actually see it in any way, shape, or form that is close to being alive because of grocery stores and restaurants, and living the life of readily-available food here in the grand ol’ US of A, isn’t it?

But where I do start to draw my own personal line is when it comes to hunting, fishing and things of those sorts. Now, before you take away my Conservative card, again, let me explain. Mountain men up in Alaska hunting so they can eat? While I wish we’d figure out a way to get them some pre-packaged food so they didn’t have to kill their next meal, all right, I can live with that. Killing a wolverine because it’s hungry and trying to get at the food you’re storing for the winter? I have a harder time with that. It’s not the wolverine’s fault you have to live in the mountains in the middle of nowhere. Native people killing some whales every year for food and tradition? I kind of have a problem with that in this day and age, but OK, I can live with that. Killing a big bear, elk, whale, shark or other animal for the quote-un-quote fun, sport, or thrill of it? Yeah, I have a problem with that. Hunting just to hunt, killing just to kill? Yeah, that, I believe crosses the line, especially when it is an animal whose numbers in the wild are just not what they used to be.

Japan killing whales? Completely pointless, and a waste. People out in the woods or on the ocean just out killing? Completely pointless, and a waste. These people killing this shark while out here on vacation? Completely pointless, and a waste. Though these fishermen did donate the dead shark to since, I just do not believe there is much science could learn today about this shark they don't already know, or could have learned by capturing then releasing it.

It all boils down to one thing. Some people just enjoy killing things. Some people step on spiders. Some people pick them up with a napkin and put them outside. Some people will go their entire life without killing a bear, elk, whale or shark, and some will not. It is the nature of the human problem. Some people will go their entire life without killing another person, and some will not. There’s billions of humans. But each one of us is an individual, right? Spend some time with an animal, any animal, and tell me they are not an individual with their own traits and behaviors.

I’ll let you stew on that for a bit. Either way, this particular shark is now dead and on its way to be hacked up for science so that some humans on vacation could have a thrill and have a story to tell, and I personally think that is just sad, completely unnecessary, and a perfect waste of a damned good shark that quite frankly, the world and its inhabitants needed more alive and swimming in the ocean than dead on a lab table.

Illegal Immigration & The DREAM Act

I admittedly have failed to comment properly on my feelings and position on the so-called DREAM Act and the reason why I am opposed to it. This has not been due to a lack of position, but, in fact, due to my inability to craft a piece that did my position justice.

In short, I feel that EVERY FOREIGN-BORN person should go through the SAME path to U.S. citizenship. Seems fair, doesn't it? If everyone follows the law, then everyone is on equal footing at the time they start the process. Should you get special consideration and get an easier path to citizenship because you have already been living here for many years, using our public education system and social services? The only scenario by which that could happen would be if you were violating U.S. Immigration law, so the answer to that question should be a resounding, "No!"

My position on this piece of legislation also stems from my view on illegal immigration, and my belief that you should receive punishment for breaking the law, not a reward, especially a reward of preferential treatment. Rather than rehash my own personal view on illegal immigration, I would like to provide for you the following excerpt from "Two Californias" by Victor Hanson.

This excerpt below is from Hanson's larger piece on his experiences while traveling through California's once-rich Central Valley, Hanson's home soil, commenting on the desolate wasteland of poverty and welfare-state conditions that the valley has now become due to overregulation and illegal immigration.

This piece holds a special personal significance to me because of my own family's tie in the first half of the 1900s to agriculture, not in the Central Valley, but right here, in Orange County, where four generations ago, my forbearers took the LEGAL path to citizenship:

Fresno’s California State University campus is embroiled in controversy over the student body president’s announcing that he is an illegal alien, with all the requisite protests in favor of the DREAM Act. I won’t comment on the legislation per se, but again only note the anomaly. I taught at CSUF for 21 years. I think it fair to say that the predominant theme of the Chicano and Latin American Studies program’s sizable curriculum was a fuzzy American culpability. By that I mean that students in those classes heard of the sins of America more often than its attractions. In my home town, Mexican flag decals on car windows are far more common than their American counterparts.

I note this because hundreds of students here illegally are now terrified of being deported to Mexico. I can understand that, given the chaos in Mexico and their own long residency in the United States. But here is what still confuses me: If one were to consider the classes that deal with Mexico at the university, or the visible displays of national chauvinism, then one might conclude that Mexico is a far more attractive and moral place than the United States.

So there is a surreal nature to these protests: something like, “Please do not send me back to the culture I nostalgically praise; please let me stay in the culture that I ignore or deprecate.” I think the DREAM Act protestors might have been far more successful in winning public opinion had they stopped blaming the U.S. for suggesting that they might have to leave at some point, and instead explained why, in fact, they want to stay. What is it about America that makes a youth of 21 go on a hunger strike or demonstrate to be allowed to remain in this country rather than return to the place of his birth?

I think I know the answer to this paradox. Missing entirely in the above description is the attitude of the host, which by any historical standard can only be termed “indifferent.” California does not care whether one broke the law to arrive here or continues to break it by staying. It asks nothing of the illegal immigrant — no proficiency in English, no acquaintance with American history and values, no proof of income, no record of education or skills.

It does provide all the public assistance that it can afford (and more that it borrows for), and apparently waives enforcement of most of California’s burdensome regulations and civic statutes that increasingly have plagued productive citizens to the point of driving them out.

How odd that we over-regulate those who are citizens and have capital to the point of banishing them from the state, but do not regulate those who are aliens and without capital to the point of encouraging millions more to follow in their footsteps. How odd — to paraphrase what Critias once said of ancient Sparta — that California is at once both the nation’s most unfree and most free state, the most repressed and the wildest.

I think Hanson makes some fantastically valid points here. While I understand that illegal immigration and the DREAM Act can be very emotional subjects for quite a large number of people living here in the United States, both citizen and non-citizen alike, I think that a good deal of the people who fall on my side of the fence on this issue are troubled mostly by two factors. This group of people's widespread inability to first admit, then hold themselves accountable for violating the law of the land in which they so desire to live, and secondly, what seems to be more of an allegiance to the place in which they do not want to live than to the place in which they do want to live.

When American citizens break the law, we pay fines or get to live in one of our many taxpayer-funded state or federal correctional institutions. Should it not be the case for the non-citizen who knowingly violated U.S. immigration law?

While it is not my intention to ruffle feathers, but my intention to get people on both sides of the argument to think rationally about this issue, I must ask the question. "If Mexico is so fantastic, why are you here in the United States? If you love Mexico so so very much, why did you not stay and try to fix it - try to fight to make your beloved homeland a better place, even if it is just in your neighborhood, or home town? Why do you fly the Mexican flag above the U.S. flag, yet make the choice to live in the country whose flag you fly below the flag of that nation that you chose to not live in anymore?"

These are not rhetorical questions, mind you. These are questions that many of the people that are being flagged as "racists" for opposing illegal immigration and the DREAM Act genuinely would like to have answered by the people on the opposite side of the argument.

Before you get on your soap box and start yelling out charges of elitism and racism, think on one thing - something that Hanson touches on in his article. If you are playing any game, any sport, in the world in which you are on a team, would you not want the person sitting or standing next to you to have an allegiance to your team above all other teams? Would you not want them playing their heart out just as much as you for your team and not have an underlying allegiance to the other team?

Now, consider, that you are not just playing a game, but you are ensuring the future of the greatest democracy to ever exist in the history of mankind - securing its future for your children, your loved ones, securing it for all the good that nation does in the world. Wouldn't you want the person standing next to you to have an allegiance above all others to your nation, and not some other nation? This is what America wants of her citizens, and I do not think it to be an unreasonable request.

If you watch a documentary on people taking the legal path to citizenship, you will see that there is a point in the immigration process where they are asked to pledge their allegiance to the United States of America above all other nations in the world, including the nation which they have left to come to America. You will see that the people making this pledge take that part of the process very seriously - that they labor on it and give it much thought - they struggle with it, but in most cases, they make that pledge. Most notably, you will see by their emotions, that their pledge is genuine.

The illegal immigrant has never had to make that pledge. They have never actually had to contemplate that choice between allegiance to their home country and ours. They get to straddle the fence. They get to live here while their true loyalty remains elsewhere. We are letting them skip a very important and noteworthy step in joining our team. I do not think it is wrong for Americans to want the people living in this country to not be allowed to skip that step.

We have a legal immigration process in place that has served this nation for quite some time. A legal immigration process that does not reward violation of that process, but in fact, deters violation. Many of us believe that our nation is best served by keeping things that way. That's not elitism, and that's not racism. That, my friends, is American Patriotism, and that, my friends, is what we want from those of you who make the choice to join our team...AMERICAN patriotism.

Not only are you incorrect in thinking that most of those who oppose illegal immigration and the DREAM Act do not want you to be able to join the team, but I believe you would find that most of us actually want you on the team. All we are asking is that you join the team according to the rule book - the same rule book that we are going to expect you to follow once you are a member of the team. You are asking us to believe that you are going to follow that rule book when you and yours have already broken its rules. Do you see how that might be of concern to us? Sadly, I don't think that you do.

Dennis Miller said it best when he commented, "We don't mind you joining the party, we just want you to sign the guest book so we know who's here." Again, it's not that Americans don't want you to join the team, we just want you to do it the right way, and we want you to be dedicated 100% to our team. I don't think that is too much to ask.

“Damn Right I’m Paranoid!”

At times, I have been accused of being paranoid. Maybe it is because I love to watch documentaries on crime so that I can stay informed on the criminal mind that is constantly working against us, the people who work for a living.

If always keeping in mind that there are dangerous people out there and being wary of placing myself in situations where they can get at me and my loved ones is paranoia, then I welcome being called paranoid.

Did you grow up in a neighborhood where gunfire broke the night silence at least once a week? I did. It may sound like an after-school special, or a sub-plot from Boyz N' The Hood, but by the time I graduated from high school, I’d been to five funerals of murder victims that I had known personally...and I grew up in Orange County, California.

Maybe that’s why I have an understanding that there are people and places in the country that are dangerous. Why, just last Friday, there was a shooting in Newport Beach and the suspect fled down the 73 South, the same toll road Teresa and I use everyday. Did I see the suspect? No, but I did almost get hit by a Newport Beach Patrol Car that passed me on Pacific Park in the bike lane, racing to catch up with the chase without his siren or lights on.

This guy’s sworn duty is to protect me and he almost killed me with his pursuit-induced bad driving, so can you image the capability of doing damage of someone who is intending to hurt me?

Now, I am not endorsing that we all live in fear, and I do not consider how I live living in fear, but it cannot hurt to be cautious of our surroundings and to watch for warning signs.

Last Friday, in Kansas City...why is it that when a meat-packing plant worker has walked into the plant and murdered five people, it seems like everyone saw it coming, but did nothing about it other than to stand around afterwards and say, “I knew it was going to happen.” Were they afraid of being accused of paranoia?

We live in an America where you can be at work and have a co-worker standing in front of you, gun in hand, and literally passing judgement by saying, “You haven’t done anything to me, so you can go,” then moving on to the next co-worker.

You’d better hope you didn’t accidentally spill coffee on this guy yesterday, or have taken too long in the bathroom when he needed to use it, because today is the day that he is going to walk in and end your life for it.

Oh, but I’m paranoid...