Read his drivel:
The quote below explains everything about Rutton's position and arguments. He is morally blind.
Rutton:
"At the end of the day, there is no moral equivalence between the lives of humans and those of animals."
Similar arguments were given about Blacks in the early 1800s, and certainly have been expressed by almost all races and cultures about all other races and cultures throughout history, usually to justify unbelievable cruelties and injustices.
However, the fight for animal rights and animal liberation really has nothing to do with any concept of moral equivalence. It has to do with kindness, respect and love for all creatures, all sentient beings, "equivalent" or not.
Personally I am against abortion for the same reason, it shows a disrespect for life, although I would reluctantly accept some one's doing abortions for a number of exceptions. I find it much harder to find exceptions in the case of animal experimentation. I see no argument that would compel me to accept any.
1 comment:
Ed, I saw this yesterday and sent an email to Rutten listing my objections to his piece. It's long but I'm posting it here because I bet he's never going to have the guts to answer his critics:
"Mr. Rutten,
I’m not seeing anything in your recent article that indicates you ever tried to get to the bottom of why activists oppose what’s going on at UCLA and why the humane community for years has tried to get a General Manager at L.A. Animal Services, and a Director at County, who will actually justify their six-figure salaries by working to end killing of healthy, adoptable animals – and face facts, abuse of those animals, particularly by County staff.
I am not a picketer, nor am I in your sense of the word an activist, nor would I ever commit arson, but I do know a couple things about these issues that you either didn’t bother to research, or deliberately concealed.
Activists oppose the use of monkeys in nicotine addiction research at UCLA that is sponsored by Philip Morris. Do you honestly believe Philip Morris wants to end smoking? I doubt it. I also doubt UCLA believes it. I further doubt that anyone believes forcing monkeys to inhale smoke or become forcibly addicted to nicotine is going to yield insight into why humans do it willingly. In that respect, monkeys are smarter than humans and pretty much stay away from things they know will kill them. But UCLA wanted Philip Morris’ six million dollars, and Philip Morris needs to appear to care about why their product kills people, so monkeys have to be imprisoned and die for this pointless, hopelessly morally flawed “research,” and so the scientists can get paid Philip Morris money. That is despicable.
Also despicable is the fact that UCLA refuses to negotiate with people who care about animals, nor to try to find alternatives to abusing animals for experiments. I would even suggest that since humans voluntarily decide to smoke, despite the fact that they know what the results will be, that it’s completely unethical to kill animals to try to stop something that would end instantaneously if people just quit smoking. Why should even one monkey have to die for someone’s consciously chosen vice?
As for the broken animal care and control systems for both the City and the County, have you bothered to do any research at all on this issue?
Do you know that Ed Boks, General Manager of L.A. Animal Services, was hired by Antonio Villaraigosa after he had been fired both in Maricopa County, AZ and in New York City? This is after Villaraigosa promised the humane community, during his second (first successful) election that he would appoint a highly qualified General Manager. He then delivered a two-time loser, and has absolutely stonewalled the humane community since, as have his deputies Jim Bickhart and Jimmy Blackman. Your own paper actually reported on the fact that in September 2008 over half of L.A. Animal Services staff signed a petition of no confidence in Boks.
Last report I heard, Ed Boks made 165K of our money, although I believe he’s given himself a raise since then.
At County we have Marcia Mayeda, who is party, along with the County, to at least three lawsuits that I know of. She has been accused of obstructing a DEA investigation regarding the Department’s non-compliance with state and federal euthanasia record keeping requirements, as well as County Animal Care and Control’s failure to obtain proper licenses. She sent an email to her subordinates instructing them to delete their emails regarding this matter and empty their trash files because “we do not need a paper trail on this.” This email was seen and verified by Board of Supervisors CEO William Fujioka, who then denied Mayeda had done anything wrong.
County also still employs a man, Felix Reyes, who was videotaped dragging a dog with a dislocated hip for a considerable distance across the grounds of the Baldwin Park shelter. This incident occurred in 2006, but County fought release of the tape until this year. This employee, per my Supervisor’s office, is still working at County Animal Care and Control, being paid our tax money, even though if I had done that to a dog I would be in jail. Marcia Mayeda has been on the job for seven and a half years and makes 192K of our money for this grotesque mismanagement and continued abuse of L.A.’s homeless animals.
I don’t agree with arson, nor do I agree with harassing the relatives of people who allow animal abuse in this city, and I don’t think it’s effective in communicating the message. But I also believe that a supposedly world-class city, county and university system should not be allowed to wantonly abuse and kill animals with no opposition. I also vehemently disagree with your unprofessional editorial comment equating these acts with the anti-abortion movement. So far this has been about destruction, or threatened destruction of property. The radical anti-abortion activists have killed and critically injured many, many people. NOT the same thing.
The fact is that the UC Regents, City and County officials have taken negotiation, or even communication off the table. Neither the UC Regents, Antonio Villaraigosa, nor the Board of Supervisors will listen to reasonable people’s legitimate concerns about these issues.
Why, if you are going to write about these issues, don’t you ask WHY people are attacking these targets? This whole piece was just an easy, sit-at-the-computer, softball. You did no work, you asked no questions, and then you tossed in a “terrorism” seasoning so that you never had to ask why these things are happening. Isn’t “Why?” part of the reporter’s job anymore?
Also, I think the word you were looking for is “satori” not sartori, which, if it were a word, would probably refer to how people are dressed.
Kate Woodviolet
PS - Your own paper, on March 9th, corrected their report to say: “Updated, Tuesday 3:15 p.m.: A previous version of this story referred to the incident as a firebombing. In fact, the FBI has not called it a firebombing and considers the incident ‘suspicious arson.’” Why are you, two days later, calling it a firebombing, and when are you going to make a correction? Is it perhaps, that firebombing makes a better story—true or not?"
Post a Comment