Conflict Between Animal Protection and Invasive Government

Note: For those of you not familiar with the ugliness of puppy mills, please do a little research and refrain from buying cats and dogs from pet stores without readily offered and clearly documented origins, and where possible, buy from local breeders you can personally check out:

• Humane Society frequently asked questions about Puppy Mills
  
• Puppy Mill on Wikipedia
  
• Stop Puppy Mills

A friend linked to an article, Council Votes on Pet Shop Ban, regarding new action soon to be voted on that would make it illegal for pet stores in West Hollywood to sell cats or dogs unless they're abandoned or rescued. Any pet shop selling any other dogs or cats would be shut down. I think one of the main hopes is that this will start a movement to shut down puppy mills and other places which abuse animals on a mass level. Many are excited about this measure and the positive consequences it may have for animal welfare. But I was immediately wary, and I commented on why:

I'm thrilled that there are enough people concerned about the hideous practices of puppy mills and others who basically abuse animals to make a buck, but I'm also really concerned about the limitations of this kind of legal action and what it means for actual freedom. Having lived in Cali for a very short time, I know this kind of thing is nothing new there, but it always makes me wary.

My friend asked what freedoms I was talking about, so I elaborated:

Whose legally granted rights are being protected here while they're moving to shut down businesses? What about pet stores who exercise responsibility and conscience by selling dogs and cats from local breeders who raise their animals well? They're probably in the minority, but they exist.

It makes little moral sense to me to go after puppy mills by shutting down businesses indiscriminately. The end does not justify the means here. Only allowing abandoned or rescued animals to be sold? How will that be documented and enforced? Why not provide an exemption for breeders who meet certain standards for the treatment of their animals?

How much can we justly legislate human freedom based on animals' supposed rights? I love animals, and it pains me deeply to see them abused and mistreated, and I believe education on what's going on is seriously needed, but this kind of action just doesn't make sense to me.

But, as the article states, this is from "the city that pioneered a ban on cat-declawing", a practice I believe should be avoided, but the feel-good criminalization of which I think is an unnerving encroachment of government into my life.

Those of you who know me well know I've always had a tender place in my heart for animals and concern for their well-being. I'm so glad people are becoming aware of the issue, but I'm also concerned about the reach of government and about possible public backlash in defense of puppy mills and against animal protection groups as a result of potentially draconian efforts.

Winter in Utah

Park City during Sundance

I found a new gallery I really liked in Park City:



The Egyptian Theater:



Classic Park City:

Christian Science Monitor

A friend asked me recently what I thought of the objectivity or fair-mindedness of The Christian Science Monitor, and I didn't know what to say other than that I had a vague notion they were somewhat conservative but didn't remember why I thought that and therefore couldn't assert it with confidence. This morning, I decided to look into it, so I read some current articles, from saving the axolotl to Obama and health care to the Prop 8 trial to the devastation in Haiti. I perused the site, read the titles of many more articles (looking for clues of bias in headings, which I did think were conservative-slanted to a small degree, but it's always hard to know if preconceived notions color that perception), and read some movie reviews. The movie reviews are what reminded me I thought it was conservative. Many of them focus on any relation to biblical values or Christian principles, but this time around, I found the reviews to be pretty normal.

I did some online searching and found forums and organizations discussing the bias of news organizations, and The Christian Science Monitor was often touted as being moderate and was often accused of being either left- or right-wing biased, which is often a sign they are either both or neither, both scenarios speaking to their balance. However, my own personal opinion, judging from the wording of their headlines and the sources with whom they speak, is that they're slightly conservatively biased but fair-minded.

Where a bias did stand out to me was in yesterday's article about the Prop 8 trial, in which the author came across as defensive of the pro-Prop 8 defense and only cited conversations with defenders, one of the two being a "Protect Marriage" leader, a staunch proponent of the amendment. The author spoke of the case against Prop 8 but seemed to side with the defense, which is no crime, but he gave the opposition no direct voice, which doesn't seem balanced.

So I thought, "Hm, maybe they're relatively politically neutral but tend to show their bias in anything touching on religion or social values?" So I read more, and I found a couple of other religion-oriented articles that didn't show much bias as far as I could tell, so I wondered if I'd simply allowed my own views to inject perceived bias into the Prop 8 article.

I wanted to find out more about Christian Science, so I went to their web site and poked around. After some digging, I found a F.A.Q. page about their beliefs and discovered something interesting: they apparently have few. That is, they claim to have very little in the way of religious creed or doctrine, only a few key principles in adherence to the Bible, such as the virgin birth, and the resurrection and ascension of Jesus (though they reject the notion that he was deity). As far as I could tell, they have some core beliefs and principles, but no exhaustive framework of doctrine and prescribed law. Suddenly, their relative "objectivity" in news reporting made more sense to me, as did something else. Their language in response to being asked about hot-button social topics, such as abortion and homosexuality, was very diplomatic but indicated an undertone of "we think it's not god's will or part of his goodness but is part of the 'unreality' along with illness and suffering (if I understand correctly, they seem to believe a kind and just god would not and did not create illness, frailty, suffering, and death, but that they are all, in some way I don't think I understand, false perceptions, or unreal constructs, deceptions grown out of not being in harmony with god and his infinite goodness and healing) and that since we all experience these things, they do not impose judgement but also do not embrace the concepts, though they embrace the people and hope and pray for their happiness and healing. This sounds good and well as they present it, but I'm skeptical of the subtexts and implications, and it also would explain the occasional bias that comes out, assuming their reporters are all also members of The Church of Christ, Scientist.

In short, I think they're mostly fair-minded and moderate in their approach, and that their bias is revealed when it touches on the few beliefs they more concretely espouse. But the process of reaching that tentative assessment was more interesting, to me, than the assessment itself, which is why I've journaled it and posted it. ...and I'm curious to hear what y'all think of The Christian Science Monitor and its objectivity.

If Only This Were Journalism

Editor's Note from the current article in National Geographic titled "The Polygamists":

"The room darkens, and Stephanie Sinclair's photographs flash on the screen. For months she has been photographing members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the FLDS. Its members are known to most of us because they believe in polygamy, but Stepahnie's photographs tell a deeper, broader story. They are able to do so because FLDS members trust her.

Stephanie has no agenda. She does not judge. There is nothing superficial or glib about her work. Her photographs are honest. They reflect her insatiable curiosity. They also reflect her compassion and sense of responsibility. The best photographers understand the obligation that comes with the privilege of access to otherwise hidden worlds and lives. Stephanie understands that others may want to pass judgment, but that is not her role. She photographs what she sees and provides the opportunity for insight. The rest is up to the reader.

In a world full of shrill voices and agendas, we at National Geographic are committed to an unbiased presentation of facts. Yes, we will cover controversial topics like the FLDS, and yes, we will devote time and resources to get the story right. It's what we've been doing for more than 120 years. Our commitment is to show the world in all its complexity--and to publish the work of photographers, like Stephanie Sinclair, who can present that complexity with compassion and fairness."

It would be foolish to fully accept any implication that all things in National Geographic are both fully correct and completely objective--in my opinion, there's no such thing--but to openly state that is the goal and to champion such efforts is more than most news organizations do in a sensational world. I appreciate the effort, at least.

And it's motivation to practice photography and writing, perhaps in a formalized environment, to join that effort, if there really are outlets for it...hm...