77. APL is going to the dogs

The Friendship Animal Protection League (APL) has been in the news lately, releasing information that it is in serious financial trouble. On Sunday, October 15, the APL held its annual membership meeting at the shelter, where it elects trustees and officers of the board. Concerned with the viability of the APL, my wife and I paid our dues, to become voting members, and attended the meeting. I debated whether or not to seek election to the board- in the end, deciding to see what direction the organization took before committing.

The meeting was attended by forty or so dedicated animal lovers, all which should be commended for their dedication in helping these homeless companions. Many of these volunteers donate their time and money to assist these animals in finding a blissful home. In addition to the laborious chores of cleaning cages and walking the dogs, they spend a lot of time helping with fundraising activities.

The non-profit protective league, based on the meeting we attended, seemed dangerously unorganized. The biggest shock for me was when David McClelland, the executive director, was unable to tell the membership exactly how many trustee positions were to be elected (until consulting his cheat sheet). How can an executive director not know how many trustees are to be elected at a membership meeting, especially considering that the trustees serve as his boss? Furthermore, it was disappointing to notice that many of the current trustees, not up for reelection, did not bother to attend the meeting- considering the state of the organization. After the election of what ended up to be six trustee positions, four officers, (and a "hanging chad" type discussion) a complete board of sixteen organizational trustees was put into place. The first challenge for this board will be to decide whether or not they have adequate leadership.

McClelland began the meeting with the notion that the shelter is broke. This is consistent with his statement to the Chronicle Telegram which reported that, "He (McClelland) stopped taking a paycheck in May - he made about $40,000 a year - and used his own money to pay APL staff last week." If this is the case, why did he and the board wait until October to make a public statement? The paper also reported that APL reserves ran out in September. Again, why do an executive director and his board just sit there and wait until they are out of money before making a public appeal. This delay puts the public in a tough spot, for now they have to decide whether or not to donate to what might be a "sinking ship." In other words, will my donation make a difference if the shelter is doomed to close?

Reviewing just the last two issues of the APL's newsletter also hinted at poor decision making on behalf of the APL's leadership. In the August issue, McClelland writes that he met with trustees and volunteers for a "Solutions Summit to review our financial problems and find a solution." He continues, "Of course, I reviewed the information in detail. This was a mistake. I should have told the group that we were broke but that this was not important." How is reviewing financial information with a Solutions Summit, dedicated to reviewing the financial problems, "a mistake"? How is it "not important"?

In the newsletter article he talks on two occasions about a "love miracle that will find us," and that losing the lease to Bingo, one of their most profitable fundraising events, as "God clobbering us on the head so that we could find a better place." Maybe God could have found them a better place, before the lease expired or within a month or two of its expiration? It sounds somewhat evangelical and a little desperate to me.

In the Chronicle Telegram, it says that the APL lost their Bingo lease in September. However, in the newsletter it states they lost their lease a year ago. Perhaps it was a year ago in September, and a convenient misuse of the facts as not to appear so delayed in their appeal. But it gets worse, as the October newsletter notes that, "Since people have been fighting over a plan to buy a party center and use it as a bingo hall; a plan to lease a bingo hall or doing something else to raise money quickly. Unfortunately, nothing has happened." The creative use of punctuation aside, it obviously puts forth the idea to its membership, and anyone that buys a newsletter, that this organization has had problems for a long time. Evidently, the recent financial problems were anticipated well in advance, and APL leadership has spent at least a year fighting over what to do. In the meantime, the organization has been sliding into financial difficulties. Finally, I do not think I have ever seen the "dirty laundry' between an executive director and his board shared in a community/membership letter.

The APL is a valuable resource to our community, but like any non-profit in today's competitive philanthropic market, it needs to show supporters that their donations will properly managed and utilized. There are a number of good causes and good organizations, including competing animal organizations, which donators will consider.

The challenge for the elected board is not only to rescue the APL from its financial difficulties, but also to decide if the management that created the financial hardship is capable of leading it out of it. Personally, I am skeptical.

76. Call law what it really is

A recent trend in Congress is the attempt to pass bills through what I would call, "the backdoor." Actually, it is probably not a recent trend; it is just that I notice it more nowadays. I am also sure that it is not a partisan issue, but my recall is largely limited to the last several years of Republican rule.

There are several ways this is accomplished, such as adopting a popular or patriotic name for the bill, attaching it to a larger perhaps even compromising bill, or rendering a law meaningless by cutting off its funding source. They all lack integrity and serve nothing more than to "trick" the general, unsuspecting public. Elected officials that engage in this practice are an embarrassment to the political system- regardless of which political party they belong to.

I have previously noted the improper notion of the Patriot Act, which is actually a stripping of civil liberties, that was unread and passed by Congress in the early morning hours. The bill has nothing to do with patriotism, and one could even argue that infringing on civil liberties is, in fact, quite unpatriotic. It is more accurately described as the search for terrorists, acted upon with few boundaries. Ironically, appropriately described, it might still have passed due to the level of fear propagated by the government.

In another example, Congress recently considered a bill involving the death tax and the minimum wage. Project Vote Smart summarized it this way, "a motion to invoke cloture on a bill that increases the federal minimum wage to $7.25 by June 2009 and increases the "Death/Estate Tax" exemptions to $5 million by 2015 and extends many other expiring tax provisions (Sec. 401) (Sec. 101) ." It does not seem to me that something as important as raising the minimum wage ought to be attached to any other bill, especially one that provides such a benefit to the very wealthy- many of whom are voting on the bill itself. To me, it is analogous to your boss offering you a significant raise if you promise to ask your neighbor to feed his or her dog a little extra. I have to ask, whatever happened to the Republican plea for an "up and down" vote.

Recently, I was made aware of another sneaky and inappropriately named bill attempting to get through Congress. This one is entitled, "Public Expression of Religion Act" (H.R. 2679)." The American Humanist Association, among several opposing the bill, summarizes it this way, "This bill would bar courts from awarding attorney's fees to prevailing parties bringing suit under the Establishment Clause, and they would make it much more difficult for citizens to challenge governmental violations of the separation of church and state."

Very clever, but really, how does the person who authored and entitled this bill sleep at night? It has little to do with the public expression of religion; rather it seeks to accomplish just the opposite- preventing individuals from exercising their religious freedom. The bill seeks to prohibit victorious (that's right, victorious) attorneys from collecting their fees. Unsuccessful lawsuits do not receive attorney fees; which, of course, is the natural deterrent from investing in cases that have little chances of winning.

Thus, in order to protect the government's actions as a conscious hindrance of religious freedom under the Establishment Clause, the sponsors of this bill have resorted to cutting off the financial support necessary of bringing suit against those actions. To me, this is an immoral manipulation of our most precious freedoms. Rather than expect the government to follow the laws of this country and the rights of individuals, Congress would rather prevent its citizens, especially its poorest citizens, from challenging it.

Following a bill through Congress, as it weaves through the House and Senate, is difficult enough. Certainly there many other examples, such as the Horse Slaughter bill and the bills that attempted to commence drilling in Alaska. This is still a representative government, and I am sure that those of us that would like to occasionally follow the legislative process would appreciate our perspective laws being properly named, fairly presented and of respectable moral standard.

75. Canned hunting not sport

When Vice-President Dick Cheney accidentally shot lawyer Harry Whittington last year, the one thing that was not missing was the humor. Columnists, comedians and cartoonists lined up to make jokes about the incident. Here are just a couple of examples:

"You know what they say, if Dick Cheney comes out of his hole and shoots an old man in the face, 6 more weeks of winter." (Jimmy Kimmel)

"Something I just found out today about the incident. Do you know that Dick Cheney tortured the guy for a half hour before he shot him?" (Jay Leno)

The jokes ranged from funny to overtly political, while the cartoons similarly varied from creative to cliché.

However, the issue also brought some much needed attention to one of the most pathetic "sports" in the world- canned hunting. The endeavor is such that it is impossible for me to find anything humorous about wealthy people living out some wretched fantasy of killing entrapped animals for fun.

During these canned hunts, "clients" pay large amounts of money to shoot animals, often exotic animals, which frequently have been raised by humans for the sole purpose of being killed. During the hunt, the animals are released into an enclosed area where the "hunter" eventually kills his or her victim(s). The success of the experience is often guaranteed. The animals, growing up with significant human contact, commonly do not even fear their attackers.

Following the incident last year, Time magazine estimated that there are over 2000 of these "canned hunt" operations throughout the world, while the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) projects that there are over 1000 facilities in the United States alone operating in 28 states. For those that enjoy participating in these hunts, and trophy hunting in general, there are organizations such as the Safari Club International (SCI). Notably, there is a significant disparity in the way some people view this organization and how this organization, of course, views itself.

The Safari Club International, from its mission statement, views itself as "the leader in protecting the freedom to hunt and in promoting wildlife conservation worldwide." And, among other things, it engages in "promoting a positive image of hunters and portraying them as responsible citizens who fund wildlife conservation, education and other programs which benefit the community."

Somewhat inconsistent to this mission statement, the website features pictures of grinning hunters posing with their dead victims as well as downloadable record books to document their accomplishments. Apparently, as a part of their undertakings, Safari Club International members attempt to shoot a prescribed list of animals including the "Africa Big Five," (leopard, elephant, lion, rhino, and buffalo) and the "North American Twenty Nine" (all species of bear, bison, sheep, moose, caribou, and deer).
According to the HUSU, Safari Club International "has grown to some 40,000 trophy collectors. More than half boast an annual income of more than $100,000. The average member owns 11 rifles, six shotguns, five handguns and a bow. Two-thirds spend about one month hunting each year, and a quarter of the members more than 50 days."

Wayne Pacelle, senior vice president of HUSU, describes the members of the Safari Club International this way:

"It's a perverse and destructive subculture. Thousands of animals suffer and die for the amusement of wealthy elites who have the means to pursue any form of recreation, but choose to shoot the world's rarest and most beautiful animals. There's no societal value to the exercise, just a selfish all-consuming mentality of killing, collecting, and showing off trophies. They know the price of every animal, but the value of none."

Safari Club International, similar to other organizations, use political donations to protect their "rights," often attempting to persuade legislators in regards to importing the "trophies" of endangered animals, including gorillas, cheetahs and orangutans. The HUSU reports that since the "1998 election cycle, SCI has contributed $596,696 to Republican candidates and $92,500 to Democrats."

In some ways, I cannot decide which is more appalling, the slaughter of innocent animals for entertainment, or the fact that these wealthy people are so bored that they can find nothing better to do with their time and money. Personally, I find hunting to be a deplorable activity, but I understand that in many ways it is a part of life. It is the motive of sport hunting that bothers me. And if hunting is to exist, I only wish to suggest that animals are afforded a fair opportunity of survival.

It seems that the egos of some are nurtured by investing their wealth into pretending that they accomplished something. Some of these people, perhaps like Vice President Cheney, are so conditioned for success, and "stacking the deck" in their favor, that they are not interested in risking failure.

Maybe next, wealthy, insecure people can contract with Michael Jordan to let them beat him in a game of one-on-one. And the same lack of accomplishment could be memorialized in a photo of a smirking client, next to an exhausted Michael Jordan, with the outcome proudly displayed on scoreboard in the background.

74. Does faith need history?

I remember as a child watching a show called "Name That Tune." To my recollection, contestants, after given a clue, would bid each other down until a person had the challenge of "naming that tune" in just a couple of notes. I guess the show had several stints on television, but that version is all I recall. I watched in amazement as players could name a song tune in only one or two notes. I was never musically inclined, and to me each note sounded like the doorbell.

I do enjoy history, and I have created a version of this game here, this time the challenge is to recall the name of a person, living or deceased, historic or fictional. Here goes:

"This figure was born to a mortal virgin (celebrated on December 25), witnessed by shepherds and Magi bearing gifts. He or she performed miracles, such as raising the dead and healing the sick, and carried the keys to heaven. Before dying, this figure had a Last Supper with twelve disciples. Each year, this figure's triumph and ascension to heaven was celebrated during the spring equinox."

If your answer to the clues above is the ancient god "Mithra"- congratulations, and well done!

Actually, in review of ancient gods and heroes, we find that many of these mythical figures share the same story. In 1936, Lord Raglan, in the book, "The Hero," classified these parallel-life commonalities into a scale of 22 heroic attributes. I will not go through all 22, but included here are the first ten:

1. The hero's mother is a royal virgin
2. His father is a king and
3. often a near relative of the mother, but
4. the circumstances of his conception are unusual, and
5. he is also reputed to be the son of a god
6. at birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or maternal grandfather, to kill him, but
7. He is spirited away, and
8. Reared by foster-parents in a far country
9. We are told nothing of his childhood, but
10. On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future kingdom.

Of the 22 familiar characteristics, the top scorers were Oedipus (21), Theseus (20), Moses (20), Dionysus (19), and Jesus (19). It is interesting that the story of Jesus is similar to other mythical figures in history. Some have suggested that an actual historical figure would not score more than six.

The conversation surrounding a historic Jesus is a complicated one, as scholars have debated this question for centuries. Unfortunately Jesus did not write anything himself, and no credible historical author of the time period, such as Seneca, Arrian, or Damis, wrote of him. The Gospels, of course, came several decades after Jesus' death, and none of them actually lived while Jesus was said to be alive.

Even though, a majority of the world would agree with me that either Jesus did not exist as a historical figure, or if he did, he was not the son of God; this is an uncomfortable dialogue to have here in America. Each Sunday morning I listen to preachers quote Jesus or eloquently describe in detail his actions and intentions. While the message might be a valuable one; unfortunately, there is little evidence that, if Jesus did exist, what he said or did has been accurately recorded.

I am not going to say that Jesus did or did not exist as a historical person; honestly, I do not think we will ever know for sure. Deciding if he did and what he meant to history and Christianity is a personal discovery. Unfortunately, historians are human and write with the same prejudicial and bias viewpoints that we each share individually. In that manner, many religious scholars and historians write with the assumption that Jesus did exist, just as many of us believed that he existed simply because we grew up being told so. Conversely, many secular scholars feel that there is sufficient evidence to believe that Jesus did exist.

To some people, whether he existed or not has little bearing on their faith, while others, like those that protested "The DaVinci Code," may feel even presenting any evidence that may conflict with their religious teaching is sinful. On the other hand, for others, a historical representation of Jesus is a central theme of their lives and, similar to the premise suggested in the movie, any deviation from the religious teachings may be reason to question their faith.