x

Save the Rats

1:00 PM -- I've notified my Near and Dear that this year I'll be making holiday donations to charity in lieu of gifting them with the usual Christmas bananas. (And I may actually do it.) So I've been rooting around on the useful Intelligent Giving Website for suitable donees.

At first, I was solid for the Elisabeth Svendsen Trust for Children and Donkeys, as it addresses two of my pet (no pun intended) peeves -- but, sadly, they seem to be advocates of both. (Tell it to Pinocchio, Elisabeth.)

Then, happily, I found this jewel: cavyrescue, its tag-line: "recycle-a-rodent."

This U.K. Registered Charity (#1111583) is dedicated to the health and well-being of "small furries," from gerbil to chinchilla to the eponymous cavy, which seems to be something like a guinea pig. But its chief concern is the beleaguered, misunderstood rat. The site is chockablock with heart-rending appeals, helpful advice, and commonsense wisdom:

    Two rat boys seek loving home.

    Pearl came to Maureen’s house as a shabby, parasite infested, emotionally traumatized 3 legged black rat and burst into our hearts.

    It can cause some friction when you have rat and snake lovers on the same property.

    Medications for an average rat with respiratory disease will cost around £330 every year.
If rats don't do it for you, the site also reaches out to lovers of feathered vermin:
    Brighton Animal Action have been given permission to rescue 13,500 chickens who have come to the end of their productive life and will be slaughtered if they can't be rehomed.
Sure, I'll take a couple. They make wonderful Christmas gifts. Stuffed.

It should be noted that Orkin Rat Control was listed yesterday as an advertiser on the site but seems to be gone now.

— Larry, Attack Monkey, Light Reading

Larry, Monkey 12/5/2012 | 3:34:28 AM
re: Save the Rats Rant rant rant rant rant!
Rant!
CoolLightGeek 12/5/2012 | 3:34:28 AM
re: Save the Rats If you are doing it in lieu of gifting your Near and Dear, shouldn't your Near and Dear be the ones picking the charities?

While on the subject of giving, I'm sure you'll be impressed with the following....

Philanthropy Expert: Conservatives Are More Generous

http://www.beliefnet.com/story...


It will be interesting to see if this causes a rant from the left, unsupported by data...


CoolLightGeek


Larry, Monkey 12/5/2012 | 3:34:27 AM
re: Save the Rats doesn't matter. he's off my list this year anyway.
whyiswhy 12/5/2012 | 3:34:25 AM
re: Save the Rats CLG:

No rant, just fact: lefties dole out charity using the government's coffers. Dwarfs conservative giving, except for tax breaks to corporations, kids of dead rich guys, contracts to Halliburton.

ROTFLMAO!

-Why
CoolLightGeek 12/5/2012 | 3:34:24 AM
re: Save the Rats Lefties love to volunteer to open up everyone's wallet instead of their own; They also keep talking about the military draft coming back because the thought of volunteering to serve is foreign to their psyche. Group think to legislate compulsory behavior instead of relying on the appeal to the good character of individual rules their concept of how they think societies should work...

Giving freely to charity is a voluntary behavior that makes people feel good about themselves. Paying your taxes is compulsory and so would a military draft be: neither provide the individual choice that allows the individual to feel good about their personal choices.
It is no wonder that conservatives are happier than lefties. Lefties would self-impose mindless compliance and take the personal reward of important individual voluntary behaviors out of life.

Building good character requires the individual to have the freedom to make good and bad choices.

CLG
whyiswhy 12/5/2012 | 3:34:21 AM
re: Save the Rats CLG:

The only reason for your objection to taxes is others compel you to pay them. Your position is the opposite of being a responsible citizen of this (or any) civilized country.

You have the freedom to get your butt out, and find an island of your own.

The facts are that with all your smugness about conservative giving and free will of moral people, even the Gates foundation could not afford social security, let alone medicare, for more than one day.

And in truth people are selfish, maybe not as selfish as you, but you in fact are a prime example of why people must be compelled to do "right": pay taxes, obey laws, and in the process help their neighbors through the auspices of a more or less detached government "machine".

Your moral horse is too high, you are suffering anoxia.

-Why
whyiswhy 12/5/2012 | 3:34:21 AM
re: Save the Rats "Lefties love to volunteer to open up everyone's wallet instead of their own; They also keep talking about the military draft coming back because the thought of volunteering to serve is foreign to their psyche. Group think to legislate compulsory behavior instead of relying on the appeal to the good character of individual rules their concept of how they think societies should work..."

Humm, mixed bag there CLG.

First topic: As a self proclamed person of high morals, I would have expected you to have no trouble with your taxes going to help those in need. Afterall, we "lefties" open up our wallets in the process of forcing open yours. Far better to have it go to real charity than Cheney's wallet via Halliburton, eh?

Next topic: Once again, as a person of high moral character, I would presume your sons and daughters stopped out of college to volunteer, and are all serving overseas, doing their (what, lost count?) fifth tour. I would also presume that in deference to a draft (with all it's known problems of exemption for rich kids), you would have no trouble with universal service in the military for say, two years, male and female? Let's make it a requirement for admission to college and/or employment.

The fact that the military consists mainly of the children of the lower classes and foreigners (yes, I am quite serious about that) is a testiment to the fact that people like you are all talk and no walk. All faith and no works. Tinkling bells.

"Giving freely to charity is a voluntary behavior that makes people feel good about themselves. Paying your taxes is compulsory and so would a military draft be: neither provide the individual choice that allows the individual to feel good about their personal choices."

Agreed, on the first part. You do have the personal choice to not pay your taxes. You can send your kids to college and get them deferments, or to live with relatives in Canada. There are of course consequences for those actions. But as a person of high moral character, that shouldn't slow you down.

"It is no wonder that conservatives are happier than lefties. Lefties would self-impose mindless compliance and take the personal reward of important individual voluntary behaviors out of life. Building good character requires the individual to have the freedom to make good and bad choices."

I thought it was the Neocon red belt bible thumpers who imposed mindless compliance. Or should we just mindlessly comply to your wishes?

-Why
CoolLightGeek 12/5/2012 | 3:34:21 AM
re: Save the Rats Why,

You continue to "not get it".

Ethics and morals is about personal conscience and FREE choice. You can not be of high morals making choices that you are compelled by force or legal consequence to follow.

Someone who refrains from stealing primarily because of the consequences of getting caught, is not an ethical person: merely a person who is acting on self-interest, and considering the odds of getting caught.

While I've claimed, IMO, morals are important to the success of societies: I have not claimed that I am of high morals. I consider them and try to do my best. I'm imperfect, as are all entities that I have scientific evidence of.

I view that reasonably ethically/morally inspired people are generally more efficient at accomplishing social good, than people who focus on materialism and who generally view that morals and ethics are irrelevant.

As a "believer" in Occam's Razor, I gravitate to the simplest explanations that account for all the available data.

Last year I posted: http://www.lightreading.com/bo...

I also post on other boards but I have yet to hear the "moral agnostics" give serious anecdotal evidence of long term successful societies that did not have morals: My contention (which agrees with Darwin's and others) is that morals and societies have evolved together and have a Darwinian aspect to them.

Why: "After all, we "lefties" open up our wallets in the process of forcing open yours."

But there you ignore the facts: conservatives give more to charities: it is the lefties tend to give only what is legally compelled: if the charitable goal isn't shared, lefties are less likely to find the personal character to find the goal compelling. (group think)

"The fact that the military consists mainly of the children of the lower classes and foreigners [...] is a testiment to the fact that people like you are all talk and no walk."

You know absolutely squat about people like me but you've convinced yourself that you do in order to make you feel better about your self-centeredness. My family has a significant history of military service and members of my family may one day die to protect a sorry selfish butt like yours, knowing full well that you would not likely ever consider of telling your children to do the same for my family.

"children of the lower classes..."

You think you know me??? Just exactly which economic class do you think my parents, my inlaws and my siblings belong/belonged?

I can live with the fact that brave and noble people sometimes have to volunteer to protect the timid and the selfish: its a much better choice than conscripting the timid and the selfish and watching them disavow the mission when confronted by actual threats.

"I thought it was the Neocon red belt bible thumpers who imposed mindless compliance. Or should we just mindlessly comply to your wishes?"

I don't want anyone to "mindlessly" comply.
I want people to have freedom to learn and think for themselves and make personal choices.
I do not believe in theocracies as they are totally corruptive of the concept of free will.

I only look to persuade potentially thoughtful people with reason, and at the same time find (somewhat inappropriate) pleasure in poking holes in the arguments of the timid, the selfish and the theocrats.

CLG
CoolLightGeek 12/5/2012 | 3:34:19 AM
re: Save the Rats Why: "The only reason for your objection to taxes..."

There you go ranting again by using your myopic imagination of what is going on in my mind from your self-confessed self-interested perspective, instead of presenting a shread of supporting documentation. Your perception that everyone at their core is self-centered demonstates a dramatic ability to ignore obvious data.

Compelling "giving" corrupts the whole concept and turns giving into taking. It erodes ethical behavior into just votes for personal gain.
I've taken the position that morals are important: you've expressed that almost everyones' morals are corrupt and that everyone just acts on self-interest anyway.

You are figuratively way out on a limb dangling in the wind trying to argue that morals/ethics/character are not important.

In truth, human are born without any ethics or social skills and are wildly selfish. Those that are properly socialized learn to believe that their societies' interests are sometimes more important than their individual selfish desires. From your view, you probably consider this is corrupt brain washing by societies.
I know of no society that has been successful defending itself without this "clan first" mentality by a significant portion of the clan.

As to my supposed unwillingness to pay taxes: Do you want to compare which of us uses more lawyers and tax consultants to reduce our individual tax burden?

I'm in total awe of your ability to project your motivations on to everyone else.

But lets get back to another of your unsupported claims that the poor and the foriegn are over represented in the military.

http://www.heritage.org/Resear...


This report updates the previous Heritage Foun-¡dation report, with data on all U.S. recruits during 2004 and 2005. We introduce the term GÇ£wartime recruitsGÇ¥ to identify volunteer enlistees in all branches during 2003, 2004, and 2005. Like the previous report,[3] the analysis considers the follow-¡ing characteristics:

Household income,
Level of education,
Race/ethnicity, and
Regional/rural origin.
In summary, the additional years of recruit data (2004GÇô2005) sup-¡port the previous finding that U.S. military recruits are more similar than dissimilar to the American youth population. The slight dif-¡ferences are that wartime U.S. mil-¡itary enlistees are better educated, wealthier, and more rural on aver-¡age than their civilian peers.



The reds are more willing than the blues to step up to protect the military missions of the nation.

It makes sense that left leaning people are less happy than their right leaning counterparts: if I had to make a constant effort to suppress the constant barrage of data that conflicts with my philosophy, then I probably would be unhappy too: at least until I found a better philosophy.


CLG
HOME
Sign In
SEARCH
CLOSE
MORE
CLOSE