Do you know the difference between animal protection and animal rights?

[Kali]

Canine-American?:wtf:

From http://www.drovers.com/news_editorial.asp?pgID=675&ed_id=3816 (admitedly biased trade journal, but I could not find a neutral news story about this event)

Conference outlines animal-rights agenda
Animal Agriculture Alliance (Wednesday, September 13, 2006)

In a speech at the second annual ''Taking Action for Animals'' conference in Washington D.C., Wayne Pacelle, President of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) committed to redoubling the animal rights group's efforts against modern animal agriculture. Pacelle indicated his belief that there is little difference between animals and humans. To support his position he used research that showed similarities between humans and non-human primates then asserted that the concept could be expanded to include any animal.

Approximately 500 people attended this conference, September 2-5, 2006, in the Washington, DC area. Major sponsors of the event were the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the Animal Protection Institute, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Farm Sanctuary, and the Doris Day Animal League (which recently announced its merger with HSUS). Attendance increased by about 200 over last year's event.

Pacelle pledged his ongoing commitment to legislation and lobbying as key paths for the animal rights movement to move its agenda forward. He urged the audience to continue pursuing animal guardianship laws to replace animal ownership laws. Pacelle suggested using the term ''Canine Americans'' instead of dogs to emphasize the rights of these animals.

This meeting continued to reflect the major changes in the animal rights movement shown in the last few years. The majority of the audience had a professional demeanor and was dressed in business casual attire. It is clear that HSUS has found - and is cultivating - a segment of activists that are educated, organized professionals capable of making calculated moves to further the organization's influence.

(entire article is only 4 paragraphs, so I am posting the whole thing, hope that is ok - bold highlights mine)

[Vincardog]

1. People have rights and responsibilities, Animals have the right to live

as long as they are able, breed if they are able and die when they are done.

[Sadie5]

4. Animals share many similarities

My Min pin has Diabetes and takes Humulin L twice a day for it. The same insulin that humans take.

[Vincardog]

7. I never saide Humans were not animals

[Kali]

8. So should your dog have legal rights? Or should you have

moral (and possibly legal) obligation to care for it? Do you see the difference? Does your dog have a legal right to that medical care?

[yurbud]

2. We shouldn't eat any animal that can use a computer

[CBGLuthier]

3. animals do not have rights

We as their stewards have the responsibility to be humane in our treatment of them.

Boy am I about to get flamed. :-)

[Sadie5]

5. You have a point

If not for our good care of our Diabetic animal then she would die. She can't give herself those shots so it is my duty to care for her.

[endarkenment]

6. define animal

such that we are not animals.

[Vincardog]

10. WE are matter too. Does all matter have Human Rights?

[endarkenment]

17. Well if you made the claim that matter has no rights

I would want to know how we are not matter. I have not made the claim that all animals should have equal rights with humans. I will make the claim that some animals ought to have at least some of the rights that we consider inalienable to humans.

Consider dolphins, whales, great apes, and many other of the large mammals. These all appear to be sentient creatures to me. Why should they not have many of the same rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness that we have?

That doesn't mean that they get to vote. It perhaps means mostly that we don't get to treat them as furniture or food.

[CBGLuthier]

11. all the other animals

besides us.

We are, at least most of us, the dominant intelligent species upon the planet.

Yes, we are animals but most of us try to not act upon pure instinct as animals tend to.

[Kali]

12. Talking legal here. Are you advocating there should be no legal

difference? Should animals be given legal rights? What would they be? Would humans no longer own animals? Would that go in the constitution?

spelling edit

[endarkenment]

18. No difference? Certainly not. See my other post.

Should some animals have some legal rights? yes.

[Kali]

22. I am trying to explore the difference between RIGHTS and say

laws that would protect those animals. Do you still mean RIGHTS? Or could they simply be protected by some regulatory method?

[Vincardog]

26. We are discussing a distinction without a difference. I do not want to be

drawn into an argument over semantics. The "Animal rights" I listed would exist in the absence of Laws or Humans.

The origin of our "Rights" in this country ir the Declaration of Independence.
< http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html >

In particular:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

This document makes clear that MEN are endowed by their Creator with RIGHTS.

I do not claim that ANIMALS have rights.

[endarkenment]

31. Yeah well that document and its authors

treated women and non white males as animals. We have evolved past that.

[Vincardog]

35. If you are going to argue that Animals Have RIGHTS, WHAT IS THE SOURCE

of those rights? BTW The Declaration of Independence states that ALL MEN are created equal. You must be refering to some other document treating non white males as animals.

[endarkenment]

44. They meant MEN and they meant white men.

See your basic american history textbook.

As an atheist I don't subscribe to the theist nonsense that some creator deity gave us our rights. Rights are innate. They do not need a source. If you need a source - the flying spaghetti monster bestowed the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness to all creatures great and small. I recognize those rights in those beings I view as sentient. Your mileage may vary.

[Kali]

46. YOU recognize that, but what about society, based on laws?

Do you think animals should have the same legal standing as humans? How would that be handled? (court advocates like for children? Would the courts have to provide free lawyers to animals that violate the rights of humans - or other animas?

[endarkenment]

65. No I have already addressed that., I have never said all rights.

And you failed to address my other point, which is that our concept of who has inalienable rights has certainly evolved from where it was in 1776 and there is no reason why it cannot continue to evolve to include rights, perhaps not all rights, but at least some rights for some animals. I say that a dolphin and a chimpanzee are not food or furniture but are sentient beings and as such they have rights too.

[Kali]

67. I didn't fail to address it but I may have misunderstood

your concept of limited rights. So then what would they be and how would they be handled legally? If they were violated, how would the individual dolphin of chimp be compensated? Or would it just be a matter of punishing the human that violated the "right"? What if another animal was in violation?

[warrens]

13. I agree

Cruelty to animals is nearly as low as you can go. I eat meat, and have no problem with that, but treating animals badly is now turning into a major issue. Money should not trump humanity in our treatment of animals. But my cat would sue me in a minute over the inadequate quality of the grub he gets, if he could.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

23. Not by me, and that's why I seldom go all-out PETA-bashing

Extreme as they are, they manage to uncover some serious abuse every now and them. and that's a good thing.

[CountAllVotes]

71. I agree with you

Animals have no rights. I just went through a living hell because they have no rights. They are not valued by our society. Too bad that our society doesn't care about animals as if they were as important as humans are.

People that abuse animals are sick. I wonder how people that do horrible things to animals treat human beings? Does anyone even want to really know? :(

:kick:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

9. It was a JOKE, that agribusiness spun into a serious comment...

and apparently, people fell for the spin. What's new there?

From HSUS...

The Humane Society of the United States Says Agribusiness Trade Group Has No Sense of Humor

September 12, 2006

Industry Group Tries To Pull a Fast One on Media and Turn Joke Into Policy Statement

WASHINGTON – The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) asked the Animal Agriculture Alliance to lighten up and find its sense of humor, after the group falsely reported on a speech by The HSUS's president and CEO. The agribusiness trade group, perhaps stung by recently losing a range of issues to The HSUS, posted a piece on its web site falsely reporting that HSUS President and CEO Wayne Pacelle urged animal advocates to pursue "animal guardianship laws to replace animal ownership laws"<1> and falsely reported that Pacelle "suggested using the term 'Canine Americans' instead of dogs to emphasize the rights of these animals" at the Taking Action for Animals Conference held in Washington over Labor Day weekend.

An audio recording of the conference makes plain that Pacelle said nothing of the kind. Pacelle opened his lecture with a joke, poking fun at the idea of political correctness and getting a roaring laugh from the crowd, stating that some people "don't want you to call a dog a dog anymore; they want you to call him a Canine American." Pacelle was just getting a laugh to lighten the mood of a conference that discussed some serious cruelty issues.

<snip>

The HSUS is very happy to refer to dogs as dogs, though it will occasionally refer to them as "pooches," "canines," "mutts," or even "hounds."

In his speech, Pacelle spelled out The HSUS' focus on four campaigns – halting the abuse of farm animals on industrial factory farms, stopping the fur trade including the clubbing of baby seals, halting egregious and inhumane sport hunting practices, and cracking down on animal cruelty and animal fighting. The organization's efforts to provide more humane treatment of farm animals raised for food have the agriculture industry on the attack, said Pacelle.

Agribusiness groups apparently lost their sense of humor in recent weeks, after losing a key vote in the U.S. House of Representatives on a bill seeking to ban the slaughter of American horses for food exports to France, and losing a motion to dismiss a federal lawsuit which challenges the government's policy of excluding billions of chickens and turkeys from humane slaughter laws.
<snip>

The article also links to WMV and MP3 files of the actual speech.

[Kali]

14. hmmm, like Macaca?

Is there an independant version of this? I could not find anything. Not that it really matters - I think the discussion is still relevant, because there ARE people (organizations?) that think like this.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

16. Well, I listened to the MP3 and I thought it was pretty obviously a joke.

And I'll go by what I hear personally before a disgruntled trade organization. It's like going to Fox News to hear what John Kerry said in his speech.

[Kali]

29. I will take your word for that (slow dial up) but what about the

point of the discussion? Rights vs other legal forms of protection.

[lukasahero]

32. Try Olberman. See his shows 9/12 and 9/13. eom

[Kali]

47. I am on really slow dial up but have already conceded the inaccuracy

of the article I posted. Nevertheless, the topic is still worth discussing, don't you think?

[lukasahero]

51. Actually, no, I don't think the issue is worth discussing

I don't think it's a real issue - I think it's a ploy being used to try and discredit people who support legislation against animal cruelty as extremist wackos. Sorry.

[deaniac21]

15. Animals are people too....

[Hell Hath No Fury]

19. THAT is one gorgeous fowl!

Do you know what kind it is?

[deaniac21]

27. Common Loon.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

I feel that if people think of "animal rights" this way it'll be easier to

understand.

Animal rights are actually legislating humans in order to protect the animals. Laws are created for humans to follow to ensure that animals are treated properly. If people break those laws, then they should suffer the consequences. Instead of getting worked up, in the "if they have rights, then are they just like people" debate, just realize that we are their stewards and their "rights" are really just the laws that a civilized society puts into place to protect them.

And protection is something that they deserve from us and are dependent on us for.

[Jamastiene]

24. Well said.

I do wish people would quit getting caught up so much in semantics that they forget the need for even the most basic anti-cruelty laws.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

25. Exactly and with the way this thread is going...

their semantics seem to be leading to not really offering them any form of useful legal protection. I also hate the way that a joke was made during a speech and people are blindly like, "They want to call dogs "Canine Americans! ARHKAJHKJRAH!!!! Crazy animal rights people!" It's not like the HSUS is like the ALF, and even the ALF hasn't gone as far as calling dogs "Canine Americans." HSUS is actually quite mainstream.

I mean, seriously, comparing "Canine Americans" to the "Macaca" comment is absurd, but yet it's been done in the thread.

[Jamastiene]

56. If we go by semantics, then

gay people have less rights than straight people. Simple protections are only in place in certain areas for us even. Rights are so far off the radar at this point for gay people, that maybe we need to start asking PETA and ALF to ask for some rights for us after they get some simple protections for animals. I mean honestly, that is how bad the argument will get using semantics like that. I get what you are saying totally.

[Kali]

61. I think you are on to something. At ;least I think you see the

differences I am trying to tease apart. If animals have rights, how would they be defined, restricted?

Gay (and other "minorities") should enjoy the same rights as anyone else. Should animals? Or are they subject to concepts of use and ownership? (maybe I need a lawyer to chime in here, because to me it is intuitively different to be accorded legal "protections" versus RIGHTS.)

[Jamastiene]

62. Canine American is kind of cute though, isn't it?

My cats could be feline Americans. Considering the fact that Repubs just shoot animals and Dems tend to live with animals, we WOULD have more voters even in the red states that way. :wow:

Unfortunately though, I do believe my boy cat, Yogi, would possibly be a repub though, because he goes through the motions of trying to hump his sister. That may be something we should consider first. I mean we should form an exploratory committee first and see which of our pets are dems and which are repubs.

[Kali]

58. The comparison was the act of explaining an odd comment as a joke

That point is NOT absurd, even as I was wrong. And I have repeatedly conceded that is WAS INDEED A JOKE - I even managed to listen to the beginning of the speech and agree with you based on MY OWN LISTENING. Why do you keep using this as a distraction?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

59. I wrote it before you conceded it to be a joke.

It's past the editing period now.

[Kali]

64. Sorry - getting confused myself, now.

[Kali]

38. I think the semantics are very improtant. It defines what the goals

of some of the "animal rights" organizations and their members are really about. There is a huge difference, at least to me, between an organism having legal standing - rights, and one simply having protections via regulations/laws/rules whathaveyou.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

43. You're trying to make a big issue out of a non-issue.

The semantics are not that important.

[Kali]

63. I disagree. Language and semantics are very important.

Even at the beginning of Percelle's speech, he mentions the need to alter thinking by using different terminology, to refer to "companion animals" rather than "pets" and then goes on to illustrate how animal "industry" uses terms like "harvest" and "production units" - it was a key point of the beginning of his talk.

[Jamastiene]

66. Sounds like PC talk to me.

I do agree that using terms like "harvest" and "production limits" are rather sickening, but calling pets, "companion animals" is sort of over the top. I live with cats and as we all know, they are not my pets, but I am their pets. I'm not so sure I want to be called a "companion animal" to them. Unless of coure, that affords me the right to get a "Awww, that's so cute." if I had a wedding. I mean dogs can get married and the same groups who do not want me to have that right usually say something about it being cute and all. Yet I try to do it and they get all upset over it. I'm not so sure how I have anything to do with their lives at all. I do not even know many of the people who hate me. How can they hate me if they do not even know me?

[Kali]

68. I don't think my cat even considers me a pet.

More like a food dispensing piece of furniture.

[Jamastiene]

54. I honestly have never heard any animals "rights" groups

asking that animals have the right to vote or marry people or any other rights that straight humans have, but then again, people keep telling me that if I have the right to get married, then animals will automatically get that right too. Of course, there are already animals weddings as it is now. Maybe I should ask the animals to stand up for my rights and not the other way around.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

70. That's because none do.

It's a nice red herring though for somebody, who wants to paint animal rights supporters as extremeists.

[Kali]

34. That does NOT seem to be the view of some extremists in the

Animal RIGHTS movement. No ownership? No human use? (whereby any use, with the possible exception of companionship and some even object to that, is termed exploitation)

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

40. Well, you seem to be thinking that groups like the ALF make up the

bulk of the animal rights movement and in that, you're wrong. You seem to only look to the extremists for examples, which by the way, the HSUS is in no way extremist.

And yes, I do consider granting them legal protections from humans by humans is granting them rights, but I since people seem to get so bizarrely focused on semantics, I merely offered a different way of wording it, that might make it easier for some people.

[Kali]

69. No, that would be why I used the word "extremists"

I see rights (in legal terms) as something only a human individual could hold. And I see them as something that (should be) are universally held by all humans. No individual (should) has more or less than any other. I realize that isn't and hasn't been true in practice but I don't see animals anywhere near the same category as that. I don't subscribe to some biblical notion that some entity gave humans dominion over everything, on the other hand I (obviously) have no qualms about owning, using or eating them. Now, morally or ethically they may have a right to be treated one way or another, but legally the action is on humans. There is no compensation to the animals when they have been abused (other than removal from the situation). They can't be sued or represented as an individual in a court.

[Jamastiene]

55. Those are extremists.

Those of us who want to see that animals are simply not abused and tortured for human entertainment do not even take those types seriously. I mean those types often make irrational statements that go way over the top. Those types and only those types believe a word of what they are saying. If anything, they are hurting the cause of preventing cruelty.

[Marrah_G]

20. If this were the case then..

No more spaying and nuetering, unless the dog specifically asks for it. No more leashed, pens or fences as this would be unlawful confinement. Combine those two things and lets see how "humanely" treated they feel as population grows out of control and starving dogs are dying in the streets or forming roaming packs of feral animals.

I am absolutely for the protection and care of animals, but animals are not people.

Flame away!

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

21. It was a joke. I posted their press release above.

And I listened to the actual speech online. It was obviously a joke. The factory farming industry just pulls a Faux News spin on them and it obviously worked.

[Marrah_G]

50. Okay I feel silly

I'm gonna go hide behind the stack of paperwork to be shredded that I've been avoiding all day.

[Kali]

60. Why? Your point and the discussion of rights vs protection is still

relavent. The "canine-american" thing was a joke, but the issue of animal rights (and the use of language similar to, if not as way out as that) is worthy of discussion.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

28. Inherent rights are a silly idea.

Rights are something members of a society choose to accord to one another, not something people or animals inherently have.

When talking about a right, one is always implicitly referring to some authority - a law, a constitution, or what have you - that bestows that right.

Animals have rights if and only if we choose to accord them to them.

What we should be arguing about is not "do animals have rights", but "should animals have rights".

[Vincardog]

42. Inherent rights are NOT a silly idea. The reason the

Declaration of Independence stares that Men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" is that the Rights are Inherent given by their CREATOR.

If members of a society choose to accord to one another RIGHTs they can Choose NOT TO accord them.

If the KING is the one who chooses to accord those rights the King can deny them.

Since the creator bestows those rights they are Inherent.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

48. But that's stil an appeal to an authority.

The right isn't an essential part of the person, it was put there by a creator, who could presumably just as well have taken it away.

Moreover, you're assuming a) the existence of a Creator, and b) that this Creator somehow "endowed" their creations with rights, neither of which is there any evidence for, and neither of which I believe. I would refer you to the second ammendment

How do you find out what those rights endowed by the Creator are, anyhow? Does it say on the box people come in, or in the instruction manual, or something?

You said "If members of a society choose to accord to one another RIGHTs they can Choose NOT TO accord them." as though you think this is a problem with my position; but it's not; it's absolutely true, and it's rather my point.

In America, owning guns is a right; in the UK it isn't. Society can perfectly well choose not to grant people the right not to be arrested and tortured without evidence; the argument against it is not "you shouldn't do that because you're violating their rights which I somehow know they have", it's "you shouldn't do that for these reasons; they should have a right for you not to that to them".

[lukasahero]

30. Doesn't anyone here watch Olberman anymore?

He covered this story citing Pacelle as one of his "Worst Person in the World" on Tuesday night. Wednesday night he offered a retraction and added some agribusiness group to his list noting that they had deliberately issued a misleading story about Pacelle to do just this kind of thing: discredit the Humane Society. Sheesh people, get the facts straight.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

49. Here are the snipits from the Olbermann transcripts...

But hey, who needs facts when they have truthiness?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14816520/
Sept. 12, 2006

That‘s ahead, but first time for COUNTDOWN latest list of nominees for “Worst Person in the World.”

And again, you can read along with me at home. Seriously, the book dealers on the Web keep tinkering with the price. It‘s like the fickin‘ stockmarket.

The Bronze tonight, to Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, we are all for the Humane Society, but this may be a stretch. Mr. Pacelle has told a conference that to emphasize animal rights he suggests not calling them dogs anymore, but calling them “Canine Americans.” Down, Sparky!...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14833620/
Sept. 13, 2006

...We‘ll tell you what it was, but first time for COUNTDOWN‘s latest list of nominees for “Worst Person in the World.”

Average customer review at Amazon, 4.5 stars out of five! How many reviews?

Ok, two, you happy?

The Bronze tonight to the Animal Agricultural Alliance, trade association for cattle and dairy companies. It was this group that circulated the quote from the president of the Humane Society, Wayne Pacelle, suggesting we stop calling dogs “dogs” and start calling them “Canine-Americans.” He was joking. The Animal Agricultural Alliance made it like he was serious. We made him Mr. Pacelle one of the yesterday‘s worst and we shouldn‘t have, that‘s our bad but, Animal Agricultural Alliance: No! No! Bad trade association...

[lukasahero]

52. "trade association for cattle and dairy companies" Rather important words

But, yeah, let's just take the side of those with CORPORATE INTERESTS. Sometimes I wonder what board I'm on. :crazy:

Thanks for posting this. Especially useful for those "on dial up" and otherwise unable to find this information on their own. :eyes:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

53. Yes, text on the MSNBC site is 20 times the file size as the text on DU.

:eyes:

[Kali]

57. Pardon me, but you seem to be missing the intent of my post

and the fact that I have conceded the article I posted was inaccurate. (I did go several pages in to google, looking for "''Taking Action for Animals'' conference in Washington D.C." all I saw were items from various "animal rights" organizations - didn't even see the article I posted)

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

Legal rights. Should animals have them? How far should this go? How would the legal structure function? Can humans use them? Eat them? Own them? Restrict their behavior in any way?

While I do have an opinion on this I haven't actually stated it. As for "taking the corporate side" well, that does deserve a :eyes: .



PS

listening to the speech in question (trying to anyway - lots of buffering on my connection) It is quite clear that while the Canine-American term was a joke, the idea of changing language (companions instead of pets) was in full seriousness and there is plenty of rhetoric attempting to link any use with every abuse. Will check transcript as well.

[Annces]

33. Sounds good to me

If you were a dog, wouldn't you want this person defending you?

Here is a statement of his beliefs and mission

http://www.hsus.org/about_us/history/on_his_retirement_day_paul_irwin_passes_the_torch_to_ceo_wayne_pacelle/wayne_pacelles_statement_of_beliefs.html

[Beaverhausen]

36. Pacelle's and HSUS response to this bogus piece

http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/agribusines_no_sense_of_humor.html

The Humane Society of the United States Says Agribusiness Trade Group Has No Sense of Humor

September 12, 2006

Industry Group Tries To Pull a Fast One on Media and Turn Joke Into Policy Statement

WASHINGTON – The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) asked the Animal Agriculture Alliance to lighten up and find its sense of humor, after the group falsely reported on a speech by The HSUS's president and CEO. The agribusiness trade group, perhaps stung by recently losing a range of issues to The HSUS, posted a piece on its web site falsely reporting that HSUS President and CEO Wayne Pacelle urged animal advocates to pursue "animal guardianship laws to replace animal ownership laws"<1> and falsely reported that Pacelle "suggested using the term 'Canine Americans' instead of dogs to emphasize the rights of these animals" at the Taking Action for Animals Conference held in Washington over Labor Day weekend.

An audio recording of the conference makes plain that Pacelle said nothing of the kind. Pacelle opened his lecture with a joke, poking fun at the idea of political correctness and getting a roaring laugh from the crowd, stating that some people "don't want you to call a dog a dog anymore; they want you to call him a Canine American." Pacelle was just getting a laugh to lighten the mood of a conference that discussed some serious cruelty issues.

Pacelle is a fan of late night talk shows, and thought he would try his hand at some humor. The animal advocates loved it, but the agribusiness group apparently cannot take a joke. Even though he got a great laugh from the crowd, Pacelle is going to keep his job as CEO and not pursue a career in professional comedy.

The HSUS is very happy to refer to dogs as dogs, though it will occasionally refer to them as "pooches," "canines," "mutts," or even "hounds."

In his speech, Pacelle spelled out The HSUS' focus on four campaigns – halting the abuse of farm animals on industrial factory farms, stopping the fur trade including the clubbing of baby seals, halting egregious and inhumane sport hunting practices, and cracking down on animal cruelty and animal fighting. The organization's efforts to provide more humane treatment of farm animals raised for food have the agriculture industry on the attack, said Pacelle.

Agribusiness groups apparently lost their sense of humor in recent weeks, after losing a key vote in the U.S. House of Representatives on a bill seeking to ban the slaughter of American horses for food exports to France, and losing a motion to dismiss a federal lawsuit which challenges the government's policy of excluding billions of chickens and turkeys from humane slaughter laws.

"Agribusiness interests don't want Americans to examine how badly pigs, chickens, and other animals are mistreated on industrial animal factories," notes Pacelle. "They are resorting to distraction and deception to keep the focus off their practices, and we hope the media will be discerning and not fall for their cheap stunts."

To listen to an audio file of Pacelle's presentation in Windows Media, click here. To listen as an Mp3, click here.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

37. I already posted that.

The OP stated it was a joke like "macaca." :eyes:

[Beaverhausen]

39. I just noticed you did. Oops

:hi:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

41. It's okay.

:hi:

[Kali]

45. Excuse me, but when the source of some comment later claims

it was just a joke, suspicion is justified. I also made the disclaimer that I could not find a neutral source in my OP. Upthread I took YOUR word for your interpretation of the audio. I certainly accept Olberman as such. So the eye rolls are unjustified in my opinion.