Jenny's Journal

The Toronto Humane Society

2009-12-07T21:44:35Z

The first day of snow in 2009. It's still melting when it hits the ground but at least it's coming down.

(Also, I almost pulled a Dan today. I had my bag of dog stuff, including toys, and there was a baby right in front of me in a stroller on the subway. I momentarily considered taking one of them out and like, entertaining the baby with the dog toy, but decided I should just let it go since other people might see it as inappropriate).

I dropped off my stuff at the shelter today. And I felt chipper about it for about five seconds afterward. It didn't help that a very grateful, very sweet guy said "donations? awesome! thank you so much!". A few seconds of delayed reaction followed and then in flooded the guilt.

Because I knew that this place sucked and the animals were being treated horribly. Granted, I didn't quite realize how horribly, but then again I never actually tried to find out. I didn't know that the staunch anti-euthanasia policy meant that all the animals with fatal physical problems just ended up dying slowly and painfully, but I knew there was something terribly wrong with management. And I heard many things in the years that followed that only confirmed this belief. And I didn't do anything. Granted I didn't really think there was anything I could do but again, I never bothered to find out.

I dropped off, what, 70 dollars worth of stuff there today. Just before I bought like 42 dollars worth of eyeliner (there were 5) which I think really puts all that stuff in perspective. I think I'm done with my makeup binge and anything that follows will be price-matched to some charity, most likely an animal based charity.

Which brings me to a less personal source of guilt. I know I'm not the only one that feels more sadness from hearing about cruelty to animals than cruelty to humans.

It's not only because animals cannot comprehend the same way people can, though that is a very large part of it.

But think about the inherent and unspoken covenant between our domesticated pets and humans. We shelter them from the elements and dangers of life, and provide them safe passage in the human world of chemicals, cars and cruelty, and they love us. The nature of that love is a little ambiguous, whether it's from some sort of pack/family mentality, or general affection, or maybe just the product of repeat interactions. But the point is that they keep up their ends of the bargain, as if they have a choice. But we let continuously fail our part, because it gets too expensive, or too difficult or sometimes just too inconvenient.

It feels...dishonorable. We put them in a situation they have no way of getting out of, and then we fail to meet our part of the bargain. And here in their "shelter", where they go for a last chance at humanity, they're met with people who make decisions for them that are based very little on their welfare, if at all. That's just pitifully pathetic.

I wish I'd done something, I really do. But it was just easier to not think about it. It hurt less certainly. That changes now. I refuse to refuse to care. I will do everything in my power to make sure that the THS doesn't return to the way it was, and I'm going to see what I can do to help out there once this is all over. Because the animals are hurting there, whether I have to see it or not, and it doesn't seem right that as the self-reflective sentient being that I should shelter myself from their pain while they can't. At the end of the day, they still feel every bit as much as we do (probably more at this point) and can't make themselves feel better by thinking the way we do.

And we do all the time, but we shouldn't. How is our society ever going to accomplish anything if we numb ourselves to every feeling we're supposed to have because it's the easy, painless course to take? "Someone else will do something about it." "Life just sucks." "They'll go to a better place when it's all over." "At least my cats/dogs are happy."

Well this may not be the easiest thing to do and it leads to a much more difficult path, but I submit that it's really the best way to begin: feel. Whether it's anger, disgust, hate, disappointment, sadness, any of those unpleasant feelings that make life more painful for us sentient beings, we should feel them.

It's perfectly fine to rationalize, to debate, to reason it out, but for God's sake, feel something. And if it's not too much trouble, try and keep feeling it.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontohumanesociety/article/735107--animals-suffering-society-workers-say
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto/story.html?id=2311524&p=1
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Ontario-Spca-1086340.html

A THS volunteer and former employee on the THS situation:

2009-12-06T04:52:33Z

http://helpths.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/ian-mcconachie/

idle thoughts...

2009-12-06T04:17:59Z

Bought GOSH Blue Moon, this gorgeous metallic blue-teal eyeliner, just now. My dad's reaction was pretty awesome: "were they out of black?". I guess blue's too out there for him.

There is a moral question I've been pondering but before I get to it, I just want to say that I don't really find much use in debating ethics. I mean I'll argue about whether something is right or wrong but extended discussions as to what makes something "right" or "wrong" seem kind of pointless to me. So having undermined the next thing I am going to say, I suppose I'll just leap right into it.

Assuming the scientists exaggerating the global warming numbers could not get caught, should they have done it? This presupposes two things of course, that they in fact did it, and that they would not get caught. Obviously at this point, it was quite clearly a dumb thing to do. But let's just allow both as our premises and continue from there.

Global warming is quite clearly not fake. We *are* pumping CO2 into the atmosphere in enormous quantities and increased CO2 would increase the temperature of everything bounded by our atmosphere. It is just a question of how long and how much. And let us also assume that these "great minds" of our time meant well, and are not getting anything out of this for themselves (quite an assumption I know).

As an aside, the great minds of our time collaborated a few years ago to increase the food supply to the third world countries by 40% and unwittingly increased their population by 120%.

So let's say you see a problem that needs to be solved, and somehow no one else seems to get it. So you exaggerate a little to bring the response closer to what the evidence suggests is needed. Right or wrong?

The obvious Kantian vs. Utilitarian ethical debate aside (intent vs. end result), we also need to throw in the tenets of scientific method. If science is akin to religion (there are many arguments that can be made for this), then scientific method may as well be our Ten Commandments. New doctors have to make an oath to "do no harm" but the sanctity of facts to science goes much deeper. If you falsify facts, then you can't really be a "scientist". That is not to say that scientists don't unwittingly misinterpret fact, or dismiss facts that don't *quite* fit their theories as anomalies (this usually gets corrected by their peers eventually) but to actually lie about your science goes far beyond the normal margins of error that being human brings to science.

But if the intent was good and the end result would be as well, is it "right"? Even if we might as well be punching scientific method in the face? And assuming that this particular case could've been looked upon based on it's inherent benefit to society and humanity and life in general (unproven), where would we draw the line? If scientists are allowed to make decisions for the rest of the species by fudging data, just because they've studied more, would that lead to a kind of science fascism?

p.s. breaking news, apparently polar bears will cannibalize each other and have been doing so more often, as well as some starving to death when the wake up from hibernation. Yes, it sucks, and it's sad. But it's important to remember that the alternative is polar bears eating seals. And polar bears frequently go to a nest of seal pups underneath the snow and basically jump on it until the pups are all crushed and then go to town. C'est la vie. If polar bears don't make it, they can join the other ~99.999% of species that have already gone extinct and the many going extinct right now.

Edit: I'm not saying don't feel bad for the hungry polar bears, I certainly do, but things have been dying of starvation for many millions of years, and many animals are certainly starving now. The ones that are not have just eaten something else (and probably not grass). But we're not responsible for polar bears (they'd actually kill you quite dead given the opportunity but only to eat you so it's not personal), or at least not nearly as responsible for them as we are for our domesticated animals and ourselves. Humans are going hungry and dying every minute (or perhaps even second) of every day, but if you're reading this, you're probably not one of them. My point is that given that we only have so many things we can worry about and change, go be upset over a starving child in a poor country as opposed to a polar bear eating another one.

Global warming -

2009-12-04T16:53:42Z

It's cold today, perhaps the coldest day of the season so far and although winter has only been around technically for four days, the Canadian winters tend to start around the end of October. What happened? And apparently Moscow had the warmest December day ever this week.

In the metro this morning was an article about adaptation and evolution of our species to deal with the change in temperature. To be clear, adaption is the change of a particular trait of a species for a specific purpose which increases its fitness. And evolution is decent with modification. As sentient, humans are really the only species that can affect it's future in any way - every other species is playing a game of chance.

Is it possible for us to change in time to meet his global climate change? Probably. Are people going to suffer for it? Almost certainly, but never the "right" people if you know what I mean. The problem is that we're slow, very slow. The scientists can't agree on what needs to be done, and sometimes even what is wrong. They can't prove it to the public in a convincing way with any sort of promptness and we have this problem where there's a disconnect between what needs to be done and what everyone believes needs to be done.

The gap is closing, but probably not in time to avoid the consequences of the lag, and people will pay for it, just not the people with money.

Species extinction? Not as big of a problem as people might believe on a grand scale. Species go extinct all the time, many of which we probably haven't even identified. And in the past billions of years, extinction has occurred on a mass scale a few times (the worst being when 90% of the species on Earth went ka-put) but populations rebuild and diversify and the end result of all those times is us. So this happens, and life goes on. For every species going extinct, another couple are gaining evolutionary advantages.

Whether cats or dogs or polar bears make it to 20 million years in the future should not be as big of a concern as whether we make it then. This is an odd point for a someone who identifies as a conservationist to make but there it is. I'm more concerned with all the animals of near-sentience that live and feel right now. And of course with all the humans that live and feel right now. Life is too important for it to suck so much for so many. Really.

And we should really pick up the pace in reducing the impact of global warming, even if we're not going to be the ones suffering if we don't.

And since Mitzie's on my lap begging a long session with the Furminator, I'm gonna finish this up and watch something. With any luck, I can do some serious studying/reading today and tonight.

Casper the ceiling cat

2009-12-04T03:17:03Z

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/toronto-shelters-use-of-donor-funds-questioned/article1383425/

I can't seem to get this cat out of my mind. Just imagining the horror of it all. This cat, which people were aware was in the ceiling, or at least liked to be in the ceiling, was left there, in a small cage, to die slowly.

Slowly starving and losing fluids and probably cold and alone and very scared.

If no one goes down for this, there will in fact be no justice in the world. And if the heads of the THS are allowed to go back to their jobs so this kind of thing can happen again, no one in Toronto will be allowed to call themselves an animal lover. Ever.

RIP Casper.

Going to go hug my own cats now.

Edit: I would hate to be the pretentious prick who wants to put the people who let this cat die back in charge just because they pretend to agree with his world view.

(To be clear, I don't agree with euthanasia of animals except in the most severe un-redeemable cases - the vast majority of which come with age. I think that FIV, respiratory diseases or anything treatable should be treated. Animals should never be killed because it's easier or cheaper. Ever. Especially since they have so much love to give and because they share our world. But I also understand that in a situation where there is a shelter where many of the animals are sick, injured or dying, no euthanasia resulting in a slow and painful death and inevitable death is cruelty as well.

I don't have an opinion on assisted suicides in comparison because animals are not able to rationalize their pain into some sort of grander scheme of life. They can only exist and suffer and not understand why it won't stop. That means that sometimes humans have to step in and intervene but only when there's nothing else that can possibly be done).

P.S. Since you're on my personal journal (aptly titled "Jenny's journal") and not on some sort of magniloquent (I thesaurus-ed that word for you) "Social & Political Theory: Notes & Thoughts", I have no qualms about calling you names. <3

fic secret santa argh

2009-12-04T02:10:33Z

It's incredibly hard to write comedy, and I don't really have that much time with exams around to do it. And it's someone's secret santa present so I'm also trying. Oh and apparently Ji reads this ship (lolololol) so he'll make fun of me if it sucks - though I'll make fun of him for reading it so it sort of evens out. Seriously Ji!

The problem with academics

2009-12-04T02:06:40Z

Apparently people in the sciences (and certainly in other parts of academia) don't really get along. They're all incredibly defensive of their theories and seem to have this horrible fear of getting things wrong.

People are wrong, it happens when facts and knowledge change. Gees.

I think the problem is the ego. Apparently since fairly smart people have always prevailed against the mass amount of much dumber people out there, they think they're so brilliant that they're automatically right about everything (I can think of one example off the top of my head).

But really, to be smart, you have to look at the evidence. When more evidence comes in, look at it again. The dumb smart people, an unfortunately numerous group, assume that nothing anyone else knows is of any significance to what they know and will dismiss all that knowledge out of hand. DUMB!

A really smart person, a true intellectual, will listen to everyone. Anything they don't have evidence to disprove, they won't completely discount, even if it doesn't fit into their notion of how the world works. That's scientific method at it's core. And if somebody comes long and proves that you're wrong, the best course is to accept that and go from there. Seriously, if every smart person did that, we can actually build on each others' works instead of stubbornly clinging to our own theories like children keeping toys from other children just for the sake of doing it.

I can not stand STAND people who dismiss things without a good reason. "Just because" is not a good reason. "I know I'm smarter than you" is not a good reason. "Your qualifications are not as good as mine" is not a good reason. In the end, it's the evidence and the arguments that matter, and if there's one thing that I can change about the world, that's probably going to be it. Because we can't solve anything otherwise. (Note: world peace would require changing the basic nature of people and ending world hunger would lead to overpopulation on a mass scale without an improvement on the rights of women all around - incidentally the second thing I most want to happen).

That's the rant. It's preemptive since I'm not actually a member of the elite academics (yet) but I'm pretty sure this is going to bother me when the time comes. It seems so sad that academics, the people who are really supposed to be above all of this, won't keep an open mind and try and work together.

taking mom to the hospital for a checkup

2009-12-03T18:32:03Z

I went out alone with my mother for the first time in ages. I was thinking on our way to the bus stop that the last time we were like this, she was most definitely taking care of me, and now it's the other way around.

Funnily enough, on the bus, when I asked her if she had food before we left, she said, "If you get hungry I'll buy you something." This totally took me aback since I was about the say the exact same thing to her.

The dynamics are a little weird right now. A psychologist could analyze the heck out of this but I'm just going to let it go for now. Tis not important.

oh god Christmas presents...

2009-12-02T05:57:49Z

Chilton's party is like 2 days after my last exam. Oh and I have no money cause I keep spending it on high end makeup ><. It's really bad when the lady at the Chanel counter at Holt Renfrew recognizes your face.

Also, seriously crushing on

http://cgi.ebay.ca/STERLING-SILVER-MANTA-RAY-STING-RAY-PENDANT-NECKLACE_W0QQitemZ280385857660QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_Fine_Necklaces_Pendants?hash=item41484ca87c

right now even though I have a very bad history of buying necklaces, wearing them three times and then leaving them in my room so I wouldn't lose them. Nevertheless it's on my list.

Edit: Apparently someone is getting this for me. WHEEEEEE.

I wonder what's going on at the THS right now...

2009-12-02T05:54:48Z

Going down tomorrow to drop a towel (don't tell my parents) and some toys (Max is afraid of the squeakies anyways) off. I might pick up some pet shampoo and maybe some other stuff on the way. Damn I think I threw away Mitzie's antibiotics from her tooth cleaning...that'll teach me to throw away medication in the future.

I've been hoping someone would go in and clean the place up for ages. *dances* I would've donated Mitzie's catwipes and furminator but then she probably would've killed me dead. I know, I'll donate her nail clippers. Save everyone a lot of pain.

I am as much against euthanasia for saving space as anyone, but if life is just going to be non-stop pain, it's the better way to go. I'd put down any of my pets in that situation. The whole THS policy is wrong and retarded.

http://helpths.wordpress.com/

edit: oo I think I have an extra good quality leash and collar stored somewhere. Must go look.

edit 2: I just spent half an hour digging through crap at my home, giving myself a well-deserved paper cut in the process. The things were divided into the following categories - what the hell is this crap, wow I can't believe I still have this, why do I still have this, hey I was looking for that, and I don't remember ever having this.

In the last category - I have a box that I could not logistically reach or look into with the label "books, soft toys, board game, Illidan" on it. Now I remember seeing an Illidan action figure that I vaguely remember someone walking away with - but I didn't think it was me. I'm uh...not quite sure what happened there but I don't think I care enough to dig it out. I'll just look in the box someday in the future.

And as to the leash and collar, they're definitely around here somewhere. Maybe my dad knows - I'll ask him in the morning.