Published Date: 16 September 2008
By CLAIRE SMITH

IT is billed as the Greatest Dog Show on Earth and is watched by millions on television.

But Crufts has found itself at the centre of a storm over allegations the battle for Best in Show is putting the health and well-being of dogs at risk.

Yesterday, the RSPCA announced it was pulling out of running stalls at Crufts because of fears that thousands of pedigree dogs are suffering due to genetic defects and inbreeding.

Chief veterinary adviser for the RSPCA, Mark Evans, called for a shift in emphasis away from looks and towards health, welfare and temperament.

"Dog shows using current breed standards as the main judging criteria actively encourage both the intentional breeding of deformed and disabled dogs and the inbreeding of closely related animals," he said.

"There is compelling scientific evidence that the health and welfare of hundreds of thousands of pedigree dogs is seriously compromised as a result.

"From a dog health and welfare perspective, such shows are fundamentally flawed and do our much-loved pedigree dogs no favours. Intentionally breeding deformed and disabled animals is morally unjustifiable and has to stop."

The move follows the airing of a BBC programme, Pedigree Dogs Exposed which featured boxers with epilepsy, pugs with breathing problems and bulldogs that were unable to mate.

Mike Flynn, chief superintendent of the SSPCA, said hundreds of Scottish owners had called the organisation after seeing a cavalier King Charles spaniel with syringomylia – a condition where the brain is pushed back into the spinal chord.

"We had hundreds of calls from people who told us their dogs were showing the same sort of behaviour as that in the programme – scratching and rubbing their heads against walls.

"People said they had no idea – they just thought that is what King Charles spaniels did."

Libby Anderson, the political director of Advocates for Animals, said the welfare of some pedigree dogs had been a concern to activists for some time. "People have always bred animals but it has gone too far and created terrible welfare problems."

Yesterday, the Kennel Club, which runs Crufts – to be staged next March – said the RSPCA's comments were "unhelpful". But its own figures reveal one in ten pedigree dogs suffers problems that affect quality of life.

Caroline Kisko, Kennel Club spokeswoman, said: "The Kennel Club is dedicated to improving the health and welfare of dogs through responsible breeding.

"The fact that the RSPCA continues to make such unhelpful statements … is extremely regrettable but we will continue to endeavour to work with them despite their stated position, for the benefit of dogs."

DACHSHUND: Old prints show a small powerful dog with strong hind legs, but today the breed has a bizarrely elongated body and tiny legs. Serious back problems are common and inbreeding has made epilepsy and deafness common. Running and jumping are difficult for today's dachshund.

BULLDOG: The most iconic of breeds is unrecognisable from the fighting dog of the 19th century. Bulldogs today are prized for a short muzzle, which creates breathing problems. Their massive heads and narrow hips mean bitches cannot give birth naturally but only by Caesarean section.

BASSET HOUNDS: Almost unrecognisable from the stocky terrier-type dog of old, today's basset hounds are bred to have huge floppy ears and a heavy body on unnaturally short legs. Bone and joint problems are common and the heavy flaps of skin can become infected.

My reasons for reading Hawthorne, Melville, and Dante are hardly noble.

By W. Frederick Wooden

I am a coward. You need to know this because this is the real reason behind my lofty policy when it comes to books.

I read only classics. That sounds horribly snobbish, but it covers my pale quivering belly of inadequacy. Some years ago I realized that people write books faster than I can read them. When I wandered around Barnes & Noble, Borders, Amazon, or Powell’s, I was stupefied. I could not even take in the titles much less read them.

At parties people discussed Alice Munro, Robert Lethem, and other authors whose names always sound like authors and never like letter carriers or janitors or junior executives. Were it not for the New York Times Sunday Book Review, my weekly Cliffs Notes of current writing, I would end up washing dishes in the kitchen just to avoid having to say “who?” “what?” and “no.” But being a public person who is expected to be well read—I am a Unitarian Universalist preacher—I could avoid neither social occasions nor being asked about what I read.

Then, in a mist-covered year close to my fortieth, I realized two things. The number of classics is much smaller and not growing very fast. And most book readers don’t read classics and feel vaguely inadequate for not reading them. In a flash I realized my plan.

The first was Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter. How I loathed it back in high school, with its curly syntax and lack of actual action. Now, though, the shadowed words were intoxicating and irresistible. And sure enough, when the white wine was being poured the question came up, “So Fred, what have you been reading lately?”

“Well, Bill, I can’t tell a good book from a bad one so I decided to re-read The Scarlet Letter.”

Intrigued silence. “Really? Isn’t that the one with . . .”

“Chillingworth?”

“Hmm.”

“Dimmesdale?” I was taunting him now.

“That doesn’t . . .”

“Hester Prynne?”

“Yes, that’s right.”

I was wicked that day. Like a ship armed with a new and better cannon, I was giddy with power, and I set about to build up my ammunition. Moby Dick was my next effort.

But pride went before that fall, and I stumbled and fell in the catalog of cetaceans. Realizing I did not have my sea legs, so to speak, I took a shakedown cruise with Billy Budd first, and as soon as I was back in port I set out again, climbing Father Mapple’s ladder into the pulpit, hearing the gold piece hammered onto the mast, and finally watching the Pequod crumble into the sea, the last act and words taking my breath away with their audacity:

. . . the bird of heaven, with archangelic shrieks, and his imperial beak thrust upwards, and his whole captive form folded in the flag of Ahab, went down with his ship, which, like Satan, would not sink to hell till she had dragged a living part of heaven along with her, and helmeted herself with it.

I could barely wait to start another. But which one? Gradually I realized great builds upon great, and pawed my way back to the Greeks. I reread dialogues of Plato, the Theban trilogy of Sophocles (magnificent in economy and power), and the Oresteia of Aeschylus. Bit by bit I savored and labored over the Iliad and the Odyssey (the former is majestic and tragic, the latter almost modern and ironic) and read the entirety of Robert Alter’s English translation of The Five Books of Moses (more a mine than a book, a sprawling text with long dusty parts occasionally studded with exquisite gems) and two of three volumes of Dante’s Divine Comedy (I actually know some Italian and reading the original alongside the English was marvelous). To complement that and settle a moral debt I then trudged through the dactyls of Milton’s Paradise Lost (like wandering through a forest of marble redwoods, stately and imposing but remote and cool).

Far from being organized and thorough, my list careers from Voltaire to Fennimore Cooper, from Thucydides to Thomas Wolfe. There are large unfilled regions on this map: Faulkner still waits, and Arthur Miller. Stendhal and Dickens are getting impatient. Chekhov and Tolstoy are so deserving, but in these global times should I not attend to Lady Murasaki and Borges, and what about Cervantes? This may yet prove as impossible as keeping current with Knopf and friends.

I suspect that part of the fun of a newer book is that it is not a classic, and thus something with which one can find fault. Who after all has the nerve to dispute the Bard? But for some people, to diss something with a raised eyebrow and a jaded sigh is precisely what they want. They can persuade themselves that if they were to write a book it would certainly be better than this, whatever this is this week. In contrast, I have been told to write a book but have demurred, thinking about Hemingway’s enviable concision or de Toqueville’s bottomless insight.

The world has too many bad books already, and like Gresham’s law, they are driving out the good with a surfeit of mediocrity. As I get older and the time I have gets smaller, it seems obvious that spending time on a book that is new and uncertain, when I could spend it with one that is undeniably good even if it is old or well known, is far from the best choice.*

What about religious books? Well, I am rereading Augustine’s Confessions, one flagellating chapter at a time. I was inspired by a recent biography of the man by James O’Donnell, as I was moved to read Paul after reading Bruce Chilton’s Rabbi Paul. As often as possible I attend my local Conservative synagogue where I get a long look at a portion of Torah, usually with an intriguing devar torah (or homily) by the local rabbi.

I must confess that I am delinquent in UU reading. The Complete Works of William Ellery Channing, which I picked up for 50 cents thirty years ago, has barely been opened since seminary. I’ve read only a few essays of Emerson. James Luther Adams I have read but not recently, and Earl Morse Wilbur’s History of Unitarianism has pristine pages yet to be turned. When it comes to current UU writers, I explain my ignorance by saying to myself, “I know what I think, and UU books are at least statistically likely to be about stuff I already agree with.” But since I am telling the truth here, the fact is I am just plain envious of all my clergy colleagues who somehow manage to keep their jobs and their lives and knock out books. My truly deepest fear is that even if I could write a book it could not get published. This is not merely neurotic; I have the pink slips from Skinner House to confirm it.

So I take refuge from envy and failure in the company of giants. I am closing in on the end of Gabriel García Márquez’ One Hundred Years of Solitude and am savoring the thought of Elie Wiesel’s Night. Long ago I read Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart, and it deserves a re-read, and Mary Wollstonecraft’s Vindication of the Rights of Women has sat upon my shelf for a generation. (When I googled that last one to confirm the spelling of “Wollstonecraft,” I first got a popup window promoting Paris Hilton, or at least her cleavage. I cannot tell whether this was ironic or exemplary, so I had better start reading.)

Hardly a noble policy in the end, but in my last bit of honesty I have to admit there is nothing better than having someone ask me about Alice Sebold or Patricia Cornwell or Dave Eggers, or, for that matter, Forrest Church or Marilyn Sewell or Gary Kowalski, and being able to respond, “Forgive me for not reading it yet, but I am in the middle of the Peloponnesian Wars. More wine?”

Cowardice has its compensations.

Correction 4.7.08: As originally published, this sentence inadvertently expressed the opposite of the author's view, stating "it seems obvious that spending time on a book that is new and uncertain . . . is by far the best choice." Click here to return to the corrected paragraph.

By Scott Hollifield | The McDowell News
Published: September 15, 2008

It's time some courageous person exposes the global epidemic of mass dog weddings.

I'm waiting.

All right, I'll do it.

Around the world, hundreds if not thousands of dogs, our beloved, furry companions who ask for little more than a can of congealed beef byproducts and an occasional belly scratch, are being forced into marriage in ceremonies resembling some kind of ancient, ritualistic hootenanny -- laughing, singing, dancing, the chasing of Frisbees.

I learned of this canine nuptial conspiracy from a reader, who we'll call "Kevin" (though his real name is Steve). "Kevin" (or Steve) sent me a story from the Indo-Asian News Service (IANS) headlined "Bow Wows And Wedding Vows At Unique Canine Wedding."

Last month in New Delhi, according to the story, more than 500 pet owners signed on to have their dogs married in a mass ceremony at the Ansal Plaza business center. Organizers culled the list to 100, and then proceeded to hitch scores of Fifis to Fidos while the wedding band pounded out Bollywood music and guests showered the couples with rose petals.

"We are here to find a perfect bride for our dog Jingo, a poodle who has been alone for a while now," said one owner.

A sacred bond

Marriage, of course, is usually a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Or, in some more enlightened locales, any various combination of the two. Or, among certain religious sects, an old man and 12 teenage girls. Or, in my neck of the woods, two consenting cousins.

Since the headline referred to the event as "unique," I figured the mass dog wedding posed no threat to what one of my thrice-divorced acquaintance calls "the sanctity of marriage."

Boy, was I wrong.

Seems you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a mass dog wedding or the festive dead-cat swinging that follows during the mass dog wedding reception. (Note: No instances of dead-cat swinging have been reported and Scott in no way advocates the swinging of cats, dead or alive. He was simply using hyperbole to make a point or, as many readers say, be a real smart ***.)

According to my Internet sources (Google), the town of Oak Park, Ill., has scheduled a mass dog wedding for Nov. 8 in an effort to claim the Guinness World Record for dog weddings, currently held by Littleton, Colo., where 178 canine couples tied the knot in May 2007.

What to wear

In Southern California, Sandy Robins wrote an article with the headline "Dog Weddings On The Rise." She cautions owners searching for that perfect wedding gown that "dress design can often look different when created horizontally to fit a dog." Robins quotes one expert who says, "Poodles can wear lots of layers and look wonderful, especially from behind."

And what do dogs have to say about these marriages? We don't know because dogs can't talk, except for Scooby-Doo, who released a statement through longtime companion Shaggy that forced dog marriages are wrong. And Scooby also requested a very, very tall sandwich.

Look, folks, dogs are our friends, our loyal companions. Is it morally right to stuff them into tiny tuxedos, drag them into the town square and force them into Rev. Sun Myung Moon-style marriages with any layered poodle that looks "wonderful, especially from behind?"

Please, think of the puppies.

I could go on, but, alas, I am a busy man. My goat is going through a nasty divorce and we've got a deposition scheduled.

■ Scott Hollifield is editor and general manager of The McDowell News.

THEY are illegal to keep as pets in NSW but sugar gliders are becoming the pet of choice in Britain, vying with dogs and cats to be domestic companions.

The nocturnal mammals may be native to the Australian bush but their cute looks, compact size and gliding ability have endeared them to a growing number of Britons, The Daily Mail says.

Another report has the creatures retailing at up to £150 ($330).

It is illegal to keep most native animals as pets in NSW, with the exception of dingoes, spinifex-hopping mice and plains rats.

National Parks and Wildlife Service wildlife management officer Geoff Ross said sugar gliders did not make good pets.

"They're not easy to maintain - they require a higher level of maintenance than your average cat or dog," he said.

Sugar gliders should be kept in outdoor aviary-type enclosures.

Mr Ross said there were also ecological reasons for not keeping the animals in the family home.

Their reintroduction into the wild, accidental or otherwise, could introduce diseases into the local population. It could also introduce genetic changes, which would threaten the tiny mammals' future.

"Could you imagine the impact of this species if it was released in North America, for instance, into the Everglades?" he said.

"It is a highly adaptive species."



This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/09/13/1220857899044.html

Play Media
Reported by: Rob Evans

Friday, Sep 12, 2008 @06:53am CST


An art exhibit wraps up Friday on Drury's campus. Pictures, painting, and sculptures - all hoping to bring attention to Missouri's puppy mill problem.

"A lot people see the cute dog," says Kris Hegle, a volunteer coordinator for Misery Missouri Art Exhibit. "What they don't see is the mom at the mill, hair covered, no teeth, suffering miserable existence. A lot of these animals are never taken out of their cages except to give birth. Feces, you're in bad shape. Dogs have lost their teeth, webbing on their feet because they've been walking on wires their entire lives."

Volunteer Kay Powell says the treatment of some animals is horrible. "Awful. Terrible. It's inhumane. The people who do this will do it for children, as well. It's an inhumane treatment of a living thing."

"Here's a dog with a droopy tongue," says Hegle, pointing to a picture. "He lost his teeth. In order for you to lose your teeth, this is what you see in a puppy mill." And, Hegle says, they're seeing more and more of those puppy mills. "Right now, we have three times more puppy mills than any other state."

Hegle says the state needs to do a better job of inspecting animal shelters. The animal care facilities act requires the state to inspect all facilities every year. But according to a recent audit, only 40 percent of commercial dog-breeding facilities were being inspected.
"So if you want to set up an operation that's not going to be inspected," says Hegle, "come to Missouri."

Dr. Jerry Eber is with Missouri's Department of Agriculture. He's one of those people responsible for inspecting animal facilities. "They have their interests, and their interest probably doesn't reflect the average citizen. I'm disappointed, and take umbrage we're not getting the job done because we're doing it. For the resources we have available, we have 3,000 licensees, that number is intimidating, they have to get to 250 sights a year to get their job done. I'll be the first to say we aren't getting 100 percent of them covered, but we are doing an adequate job. We focus our energy on unlicensed activity and the problem kennels."

If Missouri is the puppy mill capital, then the Ozarks is sitting on Main street. Barry County alone has 126 animal facilities registered, Wright County has 118. According to Eber, the high numbers are due to the inspection process itself.

"Missouri is the only state that has a state inspection program that this extent," says Eber. "If you call Ohio, you can't get it. Call California, they don't do this."

All in all, Eber says, the odds of extremely good that any puppy you buy in this state did not come from a so-called puppy mill.

"You can rest assured, 99 percent are from good kennels that are regulated in Missouri. If you go to the pet store in Springfield, we know where it came from, we can dig up the documents to prove it."

Tonight from 6:00-9:00 pm, event organizers are hosting a fundraising reception at Drury's art gallery.
It'll be the last chance for area residents to check out the paintings, before the event moves to Columbia.

For more information on the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation, visit the group's web site HERE

TOKYO (AFP) — Saying a final goodbye to pets at a funeral is a special moment for owners, but the monks involved must still cough up money in taxes, Japan's top court ruled Friday.

The Supreme Court ruled against Buddhist monks who argued that Japan's growing trend of pet funerals was a religious activity that should be exempt from taxes, like funerals for humans.

The Jimyoin temple in central Aichi prefecture offers last rites for animals that resemble traditional Buddhist funerals, with bereaved pet owners paying pre-set fees.

"The list of charges spells out prices. By no means does it show the characteristics of religious donations," presiding judge Osamu Tsuno said in his ruling.

"This is a profit making operation that should be regarded as taxable income under the corporate tax law," he said.

In Japan, bereaved families generally offer donations to monks who perform last rites rather than explicitly paying for their services.

The pet business is a growing industry in Japan, despite the general economic downturn.

Gary Pettus • gpettus@clarionledger.com • September 11, 2008


A recent Associated Press poll shows that pet owners, dog owners in particular, favor presidential candidate John McCain over Barack Obama by a margin of 42 percent to 37 percent.
Advertisement

The other 21 percent remain neuter.

Picking a potential First Dog now is important for Obama. He promised his daughters they'll get one, after the election. But, by then, it will be too late. You cannot ignore the dog-lovin' vote.

Voters expect the president to bring to the White House a loyal, furry protector of the American Dream.

FDR had a Scottish terrier, Fala. Clinton had a chocolate Lab, Buddy. President Bush has a mastiff, Dick Cheney.

Sen. McCanine

For his part, McCain's lead is almost insurmountable. He's already a four-dog man.

While his first name does sound a little like the plaintive cry of a Bichon Frise, Barack Obama has little else going for him, dog-wise.

So the American Kennel Club this summer decided to whip him into action, holding an election that saw more than 42,000 people cast votes: They chose a dog for Obama.

A poodle.

The poodle is the eighth most popular dog breed in the America.

The poodle is smart, stylish and hypoallergenic.

But, poodle lovers of America, forgive me: Your dog comes with a lot of baggage.

Whenever I see a poodle, I think of Mrs. Drysdale.

Le Dog

The snooty banker's wife on The Beverly Hillbillies, Mrs. Drysdale pampered and pompadoured a standard poodle named Claude until he looked like a cross between a sheep and Marie Antoinette.

Years later, I'm still haunted by his smug poodle tongue as it lapped up caviar. Others in my populous, likely-to-vote, Beverly Hillbillies- watching generation will remember Claude, too, and shiver with horror.

When it comes to voting for Obama, their ballot-punching instruments will falter if this man is all poodled up. Toy, miniature, standard or automatic - Claude can cost Obama the election. Oh, yes it can.

If by some miracle, he wins the election with a poodle in his pocket, he should remember this: One of his predecessors owned a poodle named Vicky. And we know how that worked for Richard Nixon.

Contact staff writer Gary Pettus at (601) 961-7037 or e-mail gpettus@clarionledger.com.

Listen Now [3 min 29 sec]


All Things Considered, September 10, 2008 · The phrase "lipstick on a pig" is commonly employed by politicians including Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain, Vice President Dick Cheney and Rep. Charles Rangel. Joel Salatin, a farmer from Swoope, Va., talks about what actually happens when one attempts to put lipstick on a pig.

September 11, 2008 | Issue 44•37


MADISON, WI—Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) fell deathly silent in the middle of a speech on education before the Wisconsin Teachers Union Tuesday, his failure of words reportedly a result of the Democratic nominee's forward-looking tendencies suddenly bringing him a harrowing glimpse of a future world shaped by madness and horror. "And that is why we must all strive to make our own tomorrow together," Obama said to resounding applause before stopping abruptly, breaking into a cold sweat, and bringing his trembling hands to his blanched face. "Oh, God, no. They're sentient. Every last one of them is sentient!" While spokespeople from the Obama camp have suggested that the candidate's recent comments about magnets being "our only hope for survival" were taken out of context, they did confirm that he has canceled all future appearances in New Mexico, especially those taking place during the month of October.

Sept. 11, 2008 -- The okapi, an African animal so elusive that it was once believed to be a mythical unicorn, has been photographed in the wild for the first time, the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) said Thursday.

Camera traps set by the ZSL and the Congolese Institute for Nature Conservation (ICCN) captured pictures of the okapi in Virunga National Park in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The pictures have dispelled fears that the species had died out in more than a decade of civil war.

Noelle Kumpel, ZSL's Bushmeat and Forests Conservation Program Manager, said: "To have captured the first-ever photographs of such a charismatic creature is amazing, and particularly special for ZSL given that the species was originally described here over a century ago.

"Okapi are very shy and rare animals, which is why conventional surveys only tend to record droppings and other signs of their presence."

The okapi, which have a black, giraffe-like tongue and zebra-like stripes on their behind, were last spotted in the Virunga National Park nearly 50 years ago on the west bank of the Semliki River.

The new ZSL survey revealed a previously unknown okapi population on the east side of the river.

Thierry Lusenge, a member of ZSL's Democratic Republic of Congo survey team, said: "The photographs clearly show the stripes on their rear, which act like unique fingerprints.

"We have already identified three individuals, and further survey work will enable us to estimate population numbers and distribution in and around the park, which is a critical first step in targeting conservation efforts."

The exact status of the okapi is unknown as civil conflict and poor infrastructure makes access to the forests of DRC difficult.

But ZSL warned that even the newly-discovered okapi population was under threat from poachers.

Okapi meat, reportedly from the Virunga park, is now on sale in the nearby town of Beni and ZSL warned that if hunting continues at the current rate, okapi could become extinct in the park within a few years.

We Thais like to claim that we are peace-loving Buddhists. Yet, we've blown it many times before with violent clashes and crackdowns in previous political crises. Whether or not we fail again this time around, depends very much on how Buddhist we really are.

COMMENTARY by Sanitsuda Ekachai


Take a deep breath. Watch it leave the nostrils. Watch it come back in. Feel the sensation. See the difference. Watch the constant change. Try do it for at least 10 minutes to let the calm set in.

Indeed, we need to instil our inner calm more than ever to prevent ourselves from getting carried away in the emotional rollercoaster of our dangerously unpredictable politics.

As the nation sinks deeper into political divisiveness, we also need to build inner strength that will help pull us out of the quagmire of hatred and violence.

We Thais like to claim that we are peace-loving Buddhists. Yet, we've blown it many times before with violent clashes and crackdowns in previous political crises. Whether or not we fail again this time around, depends very much on how Buddhist we really are.

Forget our political leadership that has no sense of shame. Forget money politics, authoritarian bureaucracy, destructive development policies, and the unjust social structures that perpetuate oppression and suffering on the ground.

Not that they are not important. On the contrary.

Those are the sources of conflict rooted in our society's inequality and moral breakdown. They are also powerful forces ready to destroy anyone in their way. That is why we need to be well-equipped mentally for the challenge.

Samak Sundaravej or not, new general elections or not, we will certainly slide into the same political instability again, if the root causes of injustice are not fixed. To fix them without being overwhelmed by anger and greed of the moment, however, we need to build within ourselves a deep reservoir of calm.

We need an insight that all things - including ourselves, our perceived enemies and our imperfect world - are under the same laws of interconnectedness and change. That we are under the same cycle of samsara of birth, old age, illness and death.

More importantly, we need to learn the art of letting go. Not only of status and possessions, but also of our beliefs and the false sense of self or ego.

Otherwise, in our quest for change, we will be lost in greed, anger, hatred and a sense of moral superiority - which have turned countless ideologues into fascists.

As Buddhists, the first step towards cultivating calm and insight is by returning to ourselves, our breath.

By mindfully observing our breathing and change in body sensation, we will realise by ourselves the power of our own thoughts; how mild feelings can spiral out of control into strong and violent emotions when we let ourselves get swept away in the stream of thoughts that are rooted in past resentment and fear for the future.

We will also find how illusive our thoughts are; how they change from one matter to another by themselves without any logical sequence; and how they stop so suddenly when our awareness catches them.

It is the same with emotions. Watch them mindfully to see how they arise, subside and pass away. Watch them flare up again when triggered by thoughts or words loaded by values, prejudices, hopes and fears, only to pass away again.

Like all things, emotions do not last. They change when conditions change. Such is the law of impermanence.

Such insight miraculously fills us with hope and loving kindness. Through experiencing the constant flux of change within, we know for certain that there is no such thing as a dead end. All is subject to change. And we can influence the change and steer clear of hurting others by being mindful of our thoughts, our words and our actions.

The current political crisis boils down to a clash of burning anger, greed and hatred. The structural inequality and injustice that sustains it also boils down to greed, anger and attachment to ego, from not knowing that nothing lasts.

If we are true Buddhists, if we want real change through peace, we must open our hearts, welcome differences and change with loving kindness.

Start with mindfulness.

Start with ourselves.

Take a deep breath.


Sanitsuda Ekachai is Assistant Editor (Outlook), Bangkok Post.

By Jeremy Sherman, Ph.D. in Ambigamy

Neo-conservatives and militant Islamic fundamentalists both claim to be braver than the rest of us because they see a clear and present danger that we don't. Both movements fear that liberalism and tolerance are powerful corruptive forces that are about to take over the world. They have that much in common. They differ on their other fears. Neo-conservatives feared Communists and now Islamists. Islamists fear capitalism and all Western influences, including neo-cons.

Both treat their fear as a sign of bravery and strength. They aren't afraid to face conflict head-on. They don't shrink from a bully the way the rest of us appeasers do.

In 1983 a new derogatory term entered political language. A chickenhawk is a wannabe hawk, a poser who promotes war with great bravado without having fought in one. The term is especially apt for those who exerted themselves to avoid military service. By this definition Bush and Cheney are chickenhawks.

But perhaps that definition isn't broad enough, or maybe we need a second term to cover a different but more pervasive combination of fear and belligerence. By a broader definition, all hawks run the risk of chickenhawkishness, no matter how much military service they've seen.

If I told you the sky is falling, you'd think I was a timid Chicken Little. If I confessed a constant fear that I'll die of cancer, you'd think me an anxious hypochondriac. If I sold my house to pay for round-the-clock guards to protect me from the boogeyman, you'd think I was a twitchy hallucinator. If I pummeled everyone who looked at me the wrong way, you'd think me a paranoid, hypersensitive idiot. If I kept interrupting our conversation to point at a spider on your shirt pocket that wasn't there just so I could drag my finger up to poke you in the face, you'd think I was a manipulative jerk. In none of these cases would you think me brave.

Why then do hawks so successfully convince us that the very act of declaring things to fear makes them brave and heroic rather than timid or fear-mongering?

Paul Revere was a hero, but if he'd raced though the streets some other night crying "The British are coming" when they weren't, there would be nothing heroic or brave about his ride. You're brave when you confront real dangers. You're a chicken when you flinch at phantoms.

There's nothing intrinsically brave about attacking other people. We want the courage to confront real threats and the courageous serenity to resist flipping out about phantoms. And above all we want the wisdom to know the difference between threats and phantoms. That's the hard part, of course, because today no one can say for sure what will and won't prove dangerous to us tomorrow or in the years and decades to come. So yes, sometimes we'll fear what ends up not being a danger, and sometimes we'll ignore what does end up being a real danger. That should make the evaluation of potential threats all the more careful-and a dogmatic association between fear and bravery that all more suspect, reckless, and, well, fearful.

My point isn't that the fear-mongers have nothing to fear. Maybe they do; maybe they don't. Rather it's that there's something weirdly dogmatic about the simple assertion that because they're anxious they're brave. They want this association to stand without regard to the fear-worthiness of any specific thing they say they fear.

The all-out, expedited response fear engenders is a limited resource. It shouldn't be squandered, so it pays to prioritize fears. But to hear these two movements and all their spellbound followers talk, no quantity of fearful reaction is too great for the troubles we face, and all fearful reaction is a sign of bravery.

At least that's their theory. In practice, such movements are very selective in its application. Neo-conservatives laugh at liberal Chicken Littles for fearing global warming. Liberals are wimps, they say. Tough guys like us wouldn't worry about some silly thing like that. And yet fearing terrorists on every corner means we're brave. This selective application of the rule of thumb so that one set of fears always equals bravery and another always equals wimpiness is just an unsupportable double standard.

Taking it up a level, are these hawks real threats or fakes? Each is sure the other is a real threat. But to those of us who don't share their certainty that they know what's worth fearing, their strident alarm calls seem to be some kind of peculiar and difficult-to-separate blend of sophisticated manipulation and naïve paranoia.

They're sophisticated manipulators to the extent that they don't really care about threats anyway. They want what they want and will go about getting it any way they can. They're crying wolf to gain attention and power. Dirty tricks including trumped-up fears are A-OK because they've already convinced themselves that the highest possible value, the one worth fighting for by any means possible, is the value of whatever they want.

They're naïve to the extent that they come to believe their own rhetoric. It's the rhetoric of weak prioritizers, people who think they don't have to pick their battles and can afford to waste energy fighting any shadow that flinches.

We've been hearing about John McCain's war record, the record of an extremely obedient soldier, one who was brave enough to sacrifice his comfort and life for a war many people questioned and history suggests may well not have been worth fighting. It's pyrrhic bravery to give your all in battle for a war you don't research well. Maybe I'm a chickenhawk for questioning whether his dogged obedience to mission during the Vietnam War is any evidence that he'd be good at the presidential challenge of evaluating missions. After all, the draft ended before I turned 18 and I would have avoided that war by any means possible, both because it didn't look worth my life and because I really didn't want to get hurt.

One battle I've joined with some enthusiasm is the one I've been going on and on about in recent months. I think one-sided virtues are a real peril. Some have challenged me, saying that I'm making a big deal about something trivial. I'm told that of course people know that not all niceness is good, and likewise that not all fear is brave.

I don't think so. In theory we might. In practice we're swayed by one-sided correlations. Fear equals virtuous bravery. Who would have thought a whole country would be willing to sacrifice its wealth, stature, and promise on such a simple, one-sided, and dubious assumption? And yet here we are.

Katrina A. Goggins, Associated Press


Sept. 9, 2008 -- Attention, amorous guys: Killarney's an Australian cutie, but woo her with care.

The feisty gal once swatted at a beau who got a little close, and gave another poor fellow the cold shoulder during their introduction.

Undaunted, Killarney's friends keep updating her online profile in the hope of finding her Mr. Right. Like many of her contemporaries, the koala might find her dream date waiting somewhere in the files of a computerized matchmaking service, keepers at the Riverbanks Zoo theorize.

Just like the digital dating services that pair up people, so-called studbooks are used to match most animals held in captivity. The databases containing information on sex, age and weight -- not so much about favorite comfort foods or long walks on the beach -- are used by more than 200 zoos nationally and some internationally. They're practically taking the place of Mother Nature in the not-so wild world of captive animal breeding.

Now, new software is going to the Web, promising more easily accessible data, faster matches and -- in a page out of the most particular of human dating sites -- details on an animal's personality to ease what can be a testy process.

Zoos won't be required to document the turn-ons and turn-offs of each animal in Zoological Information Management Systems, a collaboration between about 150 zoos and aquariums that's a year or two away from wide distribution.

At the very least, though, the software will give zookeepers better access to species-level details currently found only in zoo husbandry manuals that now are mostly e-mailed back and forth, said Bob Wiese, director of collections for the Zoological Society of San Diego.

While there's no candlelight or Marvin Gaye being played in the back rooms of zoos, there are endless tricks used to get the animals in the mood, said Wiese, widely considered the authority on ZIMS. In China, breeding experts have claimed success putting giant pandas in the mood by showing them images of other pandas mating -- panda porn, as it's been called.

"There are some frogs that you have to simulate rain for or they won't come out and breed," Wiese said. "Other frogs, they just need to hear the sound of rain and the sound of lightening and thunder. That's what sets off their hormones."

Around since the 1980s in paperback form, most of today's studbooks are in computerized databases. Basic information such as family tree, medical history, age and weight are entered by studbook keepers, then sent to a central location where the data is analyzed and converted into a "master plan" for breeding.

But the databases have their limitations. They aren't updated quickly and don't include the extra information from the dog-eared husbandry manuals on setting the optimal conditions for an animal's breeding.

So zookeepers who rely on the databases might not know, for instance, that satanic leaf-tailed geckos like group sex, that fighting equals foreplay for giant leaf-tailed geckos or that expectant gecko moms should eat snails.

That could mean the difference between a sustainable population and extinction of a species, said Ed Diebold, director of animal collections at Riverbanks Zoo, one of the only zoos to successfully breed several species of geckos.

"Big populations out in the wild breed randomly," Diebold said. "In captivity, usually these populations are considerably smaller than wild populations, which is why you can't afford to allow animals to inbreed or breed along closely related lines. That's why you have the studbooks."

Careful planning among zoos may take some of the wild out of "the wild thing" but it also ensures that the most genetically diverse animals breed, said Steve Feldman, spokesman for the Association of Zoos and Aquarium, which oversees all studbooks.

"To paraphrase an old Jeff Foxworthy joke, it's important that your family tree forks," Feldman said. "This way we can have a genetically diverse population."

The Columbia zoo is one of about 20 chosen to test the ZIMS software once it becomes available. Walt Disney World, which manages one of the largest collections of studbooks in the U.S., will be another test site.

"Studbooks are the key to our long-term breeding plans," said John Lehnhardt, animal operations director at Disney's Animal Kingdom in Orlando, Fla. "We want to ensure that these endangered species are here for the future and that's really what the studbooks are all about. What we're trying to do is maintain a savings account in species."

Disney manages about 27 studbooks, like the one for the African elephant. It also holds one of the nation's largest herds of elephants, which includes a female elephant recently sent to Disney World from Riverbanks Zoo. Keepers remain hopeful that Tumpe is a good match for the young bull that's already fathered a few calves through artificial insemination.

"She is now cohabitating with a very handsome young male," Lehnhardt said. "We have put these two together in the hopes that we'll have some success."

It's not exactly animals finding love online, but experts say matchmaking software for zoos is bringing together the single most important factor in ensuring the survival of animals -- people.

"It's really about us gathering the best scientific information we can get to make the best decisions about the long-term viability of our populations," Wiese said.

by Jim Zarroli

Listen Now [5 min 20 sec]


All Things Considered, September 9, 2008 · Businesses are always looking for ways to get better results from their employees. Now a company in upstate New York is offering a decidedly different take on worker motivation.

The Horse Institute specializes in what's called "equine-assisted learning."

The company's founders say working with horses is a great way to learn teamwork, creativity and better communication.

On a recent morning, six employees of the Farm Family Insurance Co. entered a giant indoor arena on the company's 28-acre complex in Ancramdale, N.Y. Two horses canter around the fence; another rolls around on its back playfully. The women are told they have to make one of the horses jump over a bar, but they can't touch the horse. It's not what you'd call an easy task, and they aren't exactly experienced horsewomen.

"So, you guys think we should all stay together?" says one of the participants.

"We could join hands and corral the horse. We could do something like that, without touching the horse, guiding the horse that way? Wouldn't that scare the horse or not?"

The first team walks after the horse, trying to lure it toward the bar.

It doesn't work.

Another team lines up poles on the ground, forming a kind of chute to guide the horse. This gets the horse up to the bar, but it just won't jump. It's too high.

Then, one of the women suggests just lowering the bar. There's no rule against it, and the horse quickly steps over it.

Problem Solving

The exercise is aimed at getting people to think about how they solve problems and not assume there's a right or wrong way to tackle a task.

It's a lesson with a lot of application in the workplace, says Marie-Claude Stockl. She and her husband, Larry, are refugees from the corporate world. The couple started the Horse Institute four years ago.

"I wanted to marry my two passions," Stockl says, "which is training people and also working with horses."

The Horse Institute's customers have included a car dealership, hospitals and schools. A one-day session runs at least $75,000. That may seem like a questionable use of corporate dollars, but the Stockls insist that horses make excellent teachers.

These consultants believe horses can help companies assess new hires or decide whether an employee is in the right job.

Mirroring Behavior

The reason has to do with the way horses interact with humans.

Today, the women are told to pick a horse and place a halter on it. The horses stare at the women blankly, and then trot off to the middle of the arena. The women trail after them. Finally, after several tries, they get the halters on.

Marie-Claude Stockl gathers the women in a circle. She tells them horses respond to cues, spoken or otherwise.

The horses sense if you don't know what you're doing, and they react accordingly.

"If you think the horse is going to stay there, it's going to stay there," Stockl says. "If you think the horse is going to walk away, it's going to walk away. It never fails."

"They mirror you; the horses mirror your intentions, which is fascinating," Stockl says.

"Because these horses we observe with every group, they always have a different behavior. They are you at this point."

The horses ran away, she says, because the women hadn't thought through how to handle the task before they started.

Jan Monks, the head insurance agent, says the exercise has made her think about the way she manages people — how she has to be clear about what she wants.

It's something she confesses is not always easy to do.

"I can't just expect they're going to intuitively know what I'm expecting," Monks says.

"It was surprising ... this whole exercise has made me stop and analyze myself and things that I do in business."

Companies that use equine-assisted learning say horses are so good at reflecting human behavior, because they can help teach people something about themselves. And that, they say, can be a useful tool for understanding the workplace.

... although I gotta say ... I LOVE the eyebrow quirk ...!

The Republicans are meeting down the hill from my house, helicopters are pounding the air, and there are more suits on the streets and big black SUVs and a brownish cloud venting from the hockey arena where the convention is assembled. A large moment for little old St. Paul, which is more accustomed to visitations by conventions of morticians and foundation garment salesmen and the Sons of the Desert, and so we are thrilled. It makes no difference that the city is Democratic. What matters is that, for a few days, TV will show a few pictures of the big bend in the Mississippi, the limestone bluffs, the capitol and cathedral, and a tree-shaded avenue or two, and some of the world will know that we exist.

Too bad that the Current Occupant and Mr. Cheney canceled their St. Paul appearances so they could focus on hurricane-threatened New Orleans and lend their expertise to rescue operations. As it turned out, they weren't needed, which has been generally true for a long time. Their reporting for duty now only served to remind everyone of what happened three years ago. And Mr. McCain, as of this writing, seemed torn between coming to St. Paul to address the convention and comforting hurricane victims in Mississippi, if any could be found.

Meanwhile, he posed a stark question for voters to ponder: How much would you like to see Sarah Palin of Wasilla, Alaska, as the next president of the United States? And what does the question say about Mr. McCain's love of the country that she might suddenly need to lead? No need to discuss these things at length, really. The gentleman played his card, a two of hearts. Make of it what you will.

The challenge for Republicans is how to change the subject from the dismal story of Republican triumph the past eight years and get voters to focus on, say, the old man's war record or Mrs. Palin's perkiness or the oddity of the skinny guy's last name. If they can succeed there, they can win this thing.

The Senate race in Minnesota is a good example. The Republican, Norm Coleman, has scored points by whooping up a couple tiny scandalettes — some old jokes that, like a lot of old jokes, aren't so funny, and a tax snafu by some bookkeeper with dandruff on his shoulders — against Democrat Al Franken, which may yet succeed in distracting voters from Coleman's important role as whistle-plugger in the $23 billion Iraq scandal.

From 2003 to 2006, Coleman was chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which is responsible for investigating, among other things, "fraud, waste, and abuse in government contracting," and on his watch, the subcommittee held no hearings on the disappearance of billions of tax dollars into "reconstruction projects" in Iraq that didn't seem to reconstruct anything whatsoever. Bundles of newly minted $100 bills on pallets in Baghdad that simply vanished. No-bid contracts lavished on people with connections. What may be the biggest case of war profiteering in the history of buzzardry.

The PSI is a big hammer. It's the subcommittee Joe McCarthy used to go after the U.S. Army and Sen. John McClellan used to go after labor racketeers with the young Bobby Kennedy as chief counsel, but as the Coleman subcommittee it went after federal employees who were traveling business class instead of economy, meanwhile money was pouring out of the Treasury for any Republican who could write "Iraq" with fewer than two spelling errors, and an old Bush retainer was appointed special inspector general to oversee the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund, but without authority to oversee money spent on reconstruction by the Pentagon, which was where most of the money went. All of this Sen. Coleman watched with a cool eye, and he now calculates that Minnesota voters won't have the attention span to read a story with a lot of dollar amounts and acronyms like PSI and IRRF and SIG. Maybe, maybe not.

The simple truth is that, while more than 4,000 Americans gave their lives in the war in Iraq, the war was an enormous financial opportunity for neocons and their friends, and Sen. Coleman was a passive observer of one of the biggest heists in history. The cynicism is staggering to the normal person. He was the cop who busted the hot dog vendor for obstructing the sidewalk while the McGurks were cleaning out the bank. This is no joke. A crook is walking around looking for votes. And the truth is marching on.

© 2008 by Garrison Keillor. All rights reserved. Distributed by Tribune Media Services, INC.