Another stray cat has found its way to my deck. Over the years, this has happened repeatedly. I don't know how they know that this is a house where someone will take them in and minister to their needs. Maybe somehow they sense the other cats inside. But I prefer to believe that some enigmatic force of nature sends them to me. I'm not much into organized religion, but I believe that caring for the animals is part of my life's mission.
More below the fold.
This one appeared with two large abscesses on his back, probably the result of a run-in with another animal. He had fleas which were causing a skin rash. He also had not been neutered. I took a big breathe and said to myself "Here we go again." Fortunately, this one was friendly.
First, I treated the fleas and caged him outside for the night to let the medication work. Next day I carted him to my vet where she first tested him for feline AIDS and leukemia, deadly diseases that he could transmit to the five cats who already live here. When the testing showed he was free of those illnesses, my vet cleaned his abscesses and put him on an antibiotic. The next day I took him back and had him neutered. All together, this cost me a little over $250.00.
Now I will have to find a home -- once again -- for an animal that someone threw away. This is a kitten who clearly spent his early days with a domesticated mother, so it is likely that someone let his or her female cat breed and then dumped the kittens. It happens all the time.
In a world as dangerous and threatened as ours is now, it's hard to focus on the needs of animals. Even people like me who view animal rescue as a moral responsibility have to choose these days between contributing to animal charities or giving that money to political organizations. When we have more people falling into poverty in this country, it's unlikely that animals are going to make it into the national budget or national conscience.
Yet, with each election cycle, I watch and hope for someone at any level -- Federal, state, county -- to at least recognize the problems of abandoned and abused animals. I would even be satisfied with a candidate's spouse taking this up as a cause, like Laura Bush's program with street gangs. But it never happens.
Animal rescue and advocacy is funded almost totally by individual giving. But this giving is, in my experience, always inadequate to meet the massive need. Our local Humane Society is robustly supported by the community, yet the facility is grossly overcrowded and so ramshackled that it must be replaced. But so much money is needed for the basic care of the animals that it will be years before a new facility can be acquired. The staff must turn away many needy animals due to space limitations. Those poor rejected animals will probably end up at the county facility where they will be euthanized (ironically, the local government can find money to kill them).
As Democrats, we value a society where the strong care for those who cannot care for themselves. So, it seems a very logical extension of this worldview for Democrats to be recognized as the party that cares about the animals. But recently a couple of news items have suggested the Republicans may be staking out the protection and treatment of animals as conservative territory.
First there was the AP article that was diaried here about a recent piece of legislation designed to protect dogs from profit-driven "puppy mills." This article says both the Humane Society of the US and PETA had high praise for Rick Santorum for his sponsorship of the bill. The story must have been planted by Santorum's PR people because it largely ignores the fact that Dick Durbin was a co-sponsor of the bill. The message that is communicated is that Santorum -- and possibly all conservatives -- are big-hearted animal people: "Santorum said those who think of animal rights as a liberal cause should not be surprised to find him in this camp. " The article goes on to mention several other Santorum-backed bills dealing with animal protection.
Apparently the Humane Society of the US received some feedback from their members, because a letter from Mike Markarian, President of the HSUS Fund for Animals, has been posted on their web site. This letter, under the title "We're Not Party Animals," references the AP article and states that "the animal protection movement doesn't belong to any one political party or ideology." According to this letter, "The leading humane lawmakers in the Senate sit on both sides of the aisle -- Republicans such as Santorum, Elizabeth Dole, John Ensign and Arlen Spector, and Democrats such as Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, Frank Lautenberg, and Carl Levin." As far as I can tell, this letter with its bipartisan message received absolutely no attention from the AP or any other press organization.
Then today I find George Will writing in his regular "Newsweek" column about an essay in the May 23 issue of "The American Conservative" by Matthew Scully, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush. The essay titled "Fear Factories: The Case for Compassionate Conservatism -- for Animals" deals with the horrendous cruelty that pervades the live-stock industry. Scully acknowledges the economic and nutritional inevitability of meat processing. Instead, he argues that this country needs a Humane Farming Act :
Animal suffering on a vast scale should, he says, be a serious issue of public policy. He does not want to take away your BLT; he does not propose to end livestock farming. He does propose a Humane Farming Act to apply to corporate farmers the elementary standards of animal husbandry and veterinary ethics: "We cannot just take from these creatures, we must give them something in return. We owe them a merciful death, and we owe them a merciful life."
Will's commentary seems to intentionally distance Scully from "off-putting" animal rights organizations like PETA. Furthermore, he attempts to place Scully's thesis within the context of "Judeo-Christian morality, whose whole logic is one of gracious condescension, or the proud learning to be humble, the higher serving the lower, and the strong protecting the weak."
Now, I am not about to criticize Rick Santorum for sponsoring animal protection legislation. And I find Matthew Scully's pragmatic thesis to be virtually identical to my own views on the ethical issues surrounding slaughter. What troubles me is the possibility that conservatives have recognized the value of animal protection as a political issue and they are going to hijack it just like they have hijacked Christianity.
If there is one topic that is as emotionally charged as abortion and gay-rights, it is animal protection. Through my association with animal rescue groups, I have met lots of individuals who know nothing about politics but would vote for anyone who promised to use the power of government to protect animals. These people are as single-minded and committed as any anti-abortion activist. Where abortion activists view the fetus as a life that must be saved at all costs, these people view animals in the same way. I think this is a potentially powerful group, many of whom do not know a Republican from a Democrat or a conservative from a liberal. They would go out and vote for anyone who stands up for the millions of abandoned and abused domestic animals who are killed in this country every year. And I'm not talking here about the "PETA-types." I'm talking about people like my friend Pat, a suburban housewife who volunteers at her local shelter and fosters as many homeless animals as her house will allow. She now has in her home 3 cats, 2 dogs, 12 rabbits and a turtle. She's not much into politics, but she thinks government should be doing more for the animals. I'm pretty sure she did not even vote in the last election.
The conservatives have been very clever about tapping into firmly held beliefs as a way to secure votes. As much as I hate to admit it, their use of the "marriage amendment" here in my state of Ohio in the last election was a brilliant strategic move. I do not want to see them trick people like my friend Pat into voting for them by using the same dishonest tactic with animal protection initiatives. This is an issue that may seem pretty unimportant in our current environment, but has the potential to be a major single-issue vote-getter for whichever group stakes its claim. I sure hope it's the Democrats.