Not so hot, but reasonably bothered, Vol. I

Among the many items that have distressed me in the aftermath of Katrina is the way that people talk about the animal victims of the storm. Most newscasts, whenever they mention non-human victims of the storm, the anchors preface their comments with, “Not to downplay the human toll of the storm…” or some similar introduction. Entertainment Weekly, paragon of journalism that it is, criticized Jessica Simpson’s fans (I would criticize them, too, but for entirely different reasons), saying that they “may not have done the star a big favor when they used her name to promote a campaign focused on helping animals while human survivors were desperately searching for missing loved ones.”

Since when is it a bad thing to be compassionate about all living things? For some people (myself included) "loved ones" happen to have four legs, feathers, or scales, and by just mentioning that these animal victims exist doesn't by any means indicate that we don't care about the thousands of humans affected by the storm.

This item from Wonkette especially pissed me off. (Italics are mine.)

Why People Use the WaPo for House Training

From an online chat with Marc Fisher, empathy-disabled WaPo columnist:

Crofton, Md.: Hi Marc -- Question about human behavior (mine). I am horrified at the destruction along the Gulf Coast. I see bodies in the water and felt terrible but sadly not half as bad as I feel when I see a dog, cat, etc., dead or in distress from the storm! Am I hopeless? I can look at CNN and watch coverage of body removal but I immediately turn the channel when it is an animal! Why?

Marc Fisher: Beats me. But then again, I cannot fathom why all these folks who stayed behind to take care of their pets would risk their lives for an animal that they could easily replace at any pet store.

We dare Fisher to focus group the "We'll get you a new Sparky!" approach down at the Astrodome. But, hey, the President seems to have the same idea about the city in general.

Oh, sweet Jesus, that makes me mad. It is no secret that I like animals more than I like most people. At the point where we start domesticating these animals, making them into our little buddies (R.I.P. Bob Denver), we have got to treat them a little differently -- they depend on us and they are not objects to be "replaced." Foxy and Hef (and now a black and white cat named Jezebel who lives under my bed) are part of my family; I can't replace them any more than I can replace my brother and sister. Nor could I expect them to fend for themselves when Foxy shakes and cries every time I close the bathroom door behind me. She can't live without me, and I couldn't imagine not having her around (the bunny is still in the dog house -- or rabbit hutch, I suppose -- after the nipple incident; still love the bastard, of course).

On a somewhat unrelated note, the environmental impact of pumping the sewage from New Orleans into the Gulf came up in the comments at Dotty Nana. I am upset that more people aren't extremely alarmed by the pumping. Even if you don't care about wildlife, consider this: 98% of the commercially fished fish in the Gulf of Mexico depend on an estuary during some point of their life cycle. Estuaries are the areas closest to shore (where the river meets the sea, fresh water meets salt) and will be the first to be destroyed. This pumping is going to cripple the fishing industry, and of course, make the Gulf of Mexico even nastier than it already is. And no one seems to care.