To have a dog’s life

0
by on March 26, 2005 at 7:50 pm

NORFOLK, VA–A Norfolk man who clandestinely euthanized pets for a fee was arrested late Friday for cruelty to animals, local authorities said.

With the help of customers turned informants, Norfolk police apprehended Michael Chiveaux of Ghent after a brief investigation. According to legal documents, Chiveaux allegedly received old or infirm dogs and cats at night from owners who wanted to put them to sleep. For a modest sum paid under the table, Chiveaux would then euthanize the animals in his basement by starving and dehydrating them to death.

His customers said Chiveaux was secretive about his methods.

“I asked him how he put them to sleep,” commented one elderly woman who wished to remain anonymous, “but he wouldn’t explain it to me. He only said that my cat would die quickly and painlessly. A trusted friend recommended him; that’s the only reason I was willing to take his word for it.”

As she continued, clearly struggling to master her grief, a tear rolled down her cheek.

“Knowing what I know today, I wish I hadn’t been so trusting or so eager to save money. My poor Felix! He didn’t deserve to die like that.”

Chiveaux’s animal death clinic escaped scrutiny until the curiosity of one customer, Bob Schundler of Chesapeake, got the better of him.

“A day or two after I left my dog with Chiveaux, I felt this urge to spy on him,” Schundler said. “He could be cooking and eating these animals for all we know. Somebody had to make sure he was on the up and up.”

Schundler returned to Chiveaux’s residence after midnight one evening and found a ground level window with a view into the basement, which was lit at the time. Interior shutters were closed, but Schundler was able to peer through a missing slat. What he saw horrified him.

“There were pets everywhere on the floor,” Schundler said. “They were just lying there, not moving. The dogs were on their sides, ribs heaving as they gasped for breath, with their tongues lolled out on the ground. In almost every case, they were bleeding from the eyes and from their tongues. Many of them had lost their fur. It was sickening.”

Schundler immediately went to authorities, who arrested Chiveaux within hours.

An animal control officer at the scene described the grim spectacle that met him when he arrived at Chiveaux’s home.

“It was like a Nazi death camp for pets,” he said. “Thank God [Schundler] caught [Chiveaux]. Most of the animals were too far gone to save, but we were able to rehabilitate some.”

From his prison cell, Chiveaux granted reporters an interview to defend his ghoulish occupation.

“These animals had no quality of life when they were brought to me,” he said. “They were so old they couldn’t eat, run, or frolic. Would you want to live in a state like that? I’m sure if these animals were able to speak to us, they would have begged someone to end their misery. Well, I heard their cries, and I answered them.”

When asked about his method of euthanization, Chiveaux became agitated.

“You don’t know anything about starvation and dehydration,” he snapped. “According to scientific studies done by the most reputable veterinary research clinics, this is a harmless and inexpensive way to euthanize domesticated animals. They can’t feel anything until right before death, when they experience a burst of euphoria and pleasure. It really is more humane than it looks.”

Kathryn Koryk, an official spokesperson for PETA, called Chiveaux “a monster.”

“How you could do that to a helpless animal — regardless of how old and sick it is — and call yourself compassionate, I’ll never understand,” Koryk said. “PETA applauds the citizens who helped authorities bring this man’s cruelty to an end. They rescued a number of pets that would have otherwise suffered a terrible fate.”

Chiveaux will appear before a local judge next Monday to be tried on twelve counts of cruelty to animals. If convicted, he could face a maximum sentence of $5,000 in fines and up to 24 years in jail.

###

DISCLAIMER: This story is completely fictitious. It is a commentary on the Terri Schiavo case. As such, its purpose and meaning should be self-evident.

, , ,

Thoughts on the Schiavo case

0
by on March 23, 2005 at 4:01 pm

this is an audio post - click to play

, , ,

Kerry-media axis holdout untenable

0
by on November 4, 2004 at 2:00 pm

In addition to the reasons I mentioned in my final Election night installment of From the MonT-SteR’s Mouth, there is yet another factor mitigating against the Kerry-media axis’ stubborn refusal to put Ohio in Bush’s column.

Take a look at the numbers in Pennsylvania today. Kerry’s margin of victory there is slimmer than Bush’s in Ohio by about 11,000 votes. Nevertheless, the networks confidently called Pennsylvania for Kerry early last night and are still holding out on projecting Ohio for Bush — despite the fact that 100% of the precincts have reported in (compared to 99% for PA).

I don’t hear any talk of a Bush challenge in PA in the media. I don’t hear any media speculation about what legal recourse is available to Bush in PA and what it might turn in his favor. I haven’t heard a word about how “every vote needs to be counted” in PA. There haven’t been any media calls for patience in declaring a winner in PA, lest voters who cast provisional ballots be disenfranchised. To my knowledge, Tom Brokaw’s patronizing refrain of “What’s one more day?” hasn’t been applied to the utlimate outcome of the PA election results.

I had mixed feelings about the media last night as I watched the election coverage. At times, I thought they were doing a good job of exercising restraint in projecting state winners. This morning, I’m back to being completely disgusted with them all.

Bias, bias, and more bias. If they were honest about it, I wouldn’t mind so much. But this utter pretense of objectivity that Jennings/Brokaw/Rather/Lehrer/etc. maintain frosts my butt to the core.

Journalistic malpractice. There ought to be a law against it.

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

in Politics

,

In defense of Cumberland

0
by on May 11, 2004 at 2:18 am

By now, we’ve all seen the photos. The world has seen them.

Naked Iraqi prisoners, cruelly dragged along the ground by a dog leash or forced into degrading positions simulating sex acts — all for the sport and amusement of a handful of depraved men and women who wear the uniform of the U.S. military.

Beyond seeing, we’ve all felt the burning shame and anger these photographs elicit. And we should. We are Americans. We’re better than this.

I have the deepest respect for those who serve in the armed forces. They are disciplined, well-trained, freedom-loving, and — far more often than not — honorable. Their willful service and sacrifice are the guarantors of the rights and privileges we all enjoy as U.S. citizens. For that, they have my sincere gratitude, heartfelt appreciation, and steadfast support.

But recent events have brought another facet of the military’s importance to light. The goulish images emanating from the Abu Ghraib prison demonstrate that the men and women of our military are far more than our protectors. They are also representatives and ambassadors of American civilization. Perhaps more than any other societal indicator, our conduct in war speaks volumes about the quality of our culture. In a speech given a few years ago by Alan Keyes, he observed how remarkable it is that we only used the atom bomb twice in World War II. Some decry the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as consummate expressions of American barbarism. Consider, however, that we were the first to develop and deploy nuclear weapons. No other nation possessed such powerful technology. Had chosen to do so, we could have held the world hostage: Either join the new global American empire or face annihilation.

But we didn’t, because we’re better than that. It was enough for us to procure Japan’s unconditional surrender and put an end to the most destructive conflict the world has ever known.

The projection of American force must always be tempered by the exercise of American restraint; the locus of such restraint resides in the underlying Judeo-Christian values that are so foundational to the success and greatness of our nation. An extreme minority of American men and women chose to depart from those values in a crucial time and region where the cynical, scrutinizing eyes of the entire world are focused. Unfortunately, it takes only a little foolishness to undo much wisdom (see Ecclesiastes 10:1). This is perhaps the most frustrating aspect of this whole scandal. The liberation of an oppressed people, the honorable conduct of the majority our armed forces, and the good and upright values the American public holds are all overshadowed in the court of public opinion by the wicked deeds of a select few.

Imagine, therefore, my personal consternation when the world learned that some of the soldiers who perpetrated the abuse at Abu Ghraib came from a batallion of reservists stationed in a suburb of my home town, Cumberland, MD.

In response to this news, a huge cadre of reporters from all over the planet descended upon sleepy little Cumberland (see photo at right), interviewing local yokels to get reaction to the news coming out of Abu Ghraib — and to find out what it is about Cumberland that would produce the military “monsters” everybody now loves to hate. Many of the reporters apparently proceeded from an assumption of guilt by association; if soldiers from Cumberland behaved so despicably, then Cumberland and its citizens must be despicable as well.

Given the axiom from Ecclesiastes I cited above, I can understand that kind of reaction. Even so, is it really all that difficult to realize that every group of people — whether a community, a nation, or a military — is going to have a few bad eggs in it? (HINT: The preceding sentence is a rhetorical question that expects a negative answer.)

When I was a senior at Allegany High School in Cumberland, I took a guitar class. It was one of those blow-off classes we’ve all had on occasion — half the time the teacher left us to our own devices. One of the members of the guitar class was a Japanese exchange student. She was almost universally well-liked. Her petite frame, kind face, and polite meekness were endearing. She was also a very good pianist, and on those days when our guitar class ended up being a study hall, she could usually be found banging away at an upright piano that sat at the front of the room. Eventually, the tasteful stream of Bach inventions and Clementi sonatas just got to be too much for some of the yahoos in our class. To my horror, one of them taped a profanity-laden sign to the piano while the exchange student was performing. This quiet, kindhearted girl was a guest in our school, our community, and our country. I felt that all of us were duty-bound to put our best foot forward — both for her benefit and our own. So, before she had a chance to see the boorish epithets on the sign, I ripped it off the piano and threw it in the trash. Then I asked her as gently as I knew how to take a rest from tickling the ivories. I’ll never forget the look she gave me; it was as if I had kicked a puppy. I can’t imagine her reaction if she had actually seen the sign.

Believe it or not, there is a point to this story that relates to the Abu Ghraib scandal. It would be positively absurd to assert that my entire high school was racist or anti-Japanese because a few students in my guitar class mistreated a Japanese exchange student. In the same way, the mistreatment of some Iraqi prisoners at the hands of Cumberland natives doesn’t make Cumberland (or America) a wholesale incubator for barbarians.

Observers of the Abu Ghraib scandal ought to be able to make a distinction between the errant actions of a few and the values and policies of an entire people. It’s a very simple distinction to make, as my guitar class story illustrates. When members of the press, leaders of nations, and terrorists alike fail to make this distinction, I can only conclude that they have chosen not to do so out of political or ideological expedience — a fact which highlights their own willful ignorance and prejudice vis-a-vis the U.S., not to mention their hypocrisy.

Go ahead. Hold us to standards you are unwilling to live by yourselves. We’re used to it. We’re Americans.

, , ,

Yer overcookin’ ma grits

0
by on April 5, 2004 at 2:22 am

The NY Times published a March 31st article on the recent launch of Air America — the new, happenin’ leftist radio talk show network. NOTA BENE: In order to make room for Air America’s launch, a number of African-American and other ethnic talk radio programs were reportedly forced to join sauropods and dodo birds in the nether gloom of extinction. How’s that for respecting and empowering minorities!

But I digress …

In the aforementioned article, Janeane Garofalo — the actress/comedienne turned talk radio host — makes some prejudicial and self-contradictory statements that are typical of left-leaning rhetoric. Ms. Garofalo basically accuses conservative talk radio hosts of being universally nasty and hateful. In the same breath, she sanctimoniously brings the intellectual capacity of conservatives into question while insisting that she and her colleagues at AirAmerica will refrain from the nasty behavior exemplified by right-wingers. Now that’s consistency and kindness in action, wouldn’t you say? Point of biblical application: Matthew 7:3-5.

At any rate, her comments inspired the following two-part rant diatribe installment of From the MonT-SteR’s Mouth:

Part I
Part II

Let me know what you think!

Blessings,

Rob Monti
aka The MonT-SteR

in Politics

, ,

Kick ‘em while they’re up, kick ‘em while they’re down…

0
by on October 15, 2003 at 10:49 pm

Well, friends, it’s been quite some time since my last post. For that, please accept my apologies. I know from the folks at OneStat that The MonT-SteR REPORT has now gained a modest little readership. Thanks to you all for your patience.The MonT-SteR has been busy with… um, shall we say — life issues since Isabel came to town. Not many days hence, said issues will result in a big, fat, fun tMR announcement. So stay tuned!

Now I would like to say a few words about the giant media pig pile on Rush Limbaugh. Before I do that, however, I feel somewhat obliged to make a rather cumbersome (and tiresome) disclaimer. As tMR readers know from the MonT-SteR Links page of my site, The MonT-SteR is an unabashed Ditto-head. This is not fanboy lingo for “I agree unequivocally with everything Rush says.” Rush himself has been forced to explain ad infinitum, ad nauseum that Ditto-head is not synonymous with “mind-numbed robot” — a rude epithet the left often gleefully hurls at Rush’s devotees. Thus, while I am one of Rush’s fans and thoroughly enjoy his show, I do not accept everything that comes out of the man’s mouth as holy writ. Are we clear? No? Let me restate it: The MonT-SteR acknowledges that many (if not most) of his views find concord with those expressed by Rush Limbaugh, but this is by no means the case 100% of the time. There now. Perhaps tMR readers on the left side of the political spectrum will manage to unclench their respective posteriors and read what I have to say with a modicum of charity. On to my comments….

I have noted with a degree of consternation that the Al Frankens and John Kerrys and Don Imuses (should that be Imi?) of the world were quick to launch into tirades designed to pigeonhole Rush with a loathsome stigma: hypocrite. After all, Rush was always decrying how soft our society is on criminals like drug dealers and users, and all that time he was abusing drugs himself. What hypocrisy! Except for the fact that the charge just doesn’t stick. Here’s why.

Nobody can condone Rush’s continued illicit use of prescription pain-killers. It was wrong, and he’d be the first to admit it. But he came by his addiction “honestly,” so to speak. A doctor legally prescribed these pain-killers to treat chronic pain stemming from unsuccessful surgery. Because these pills contain such a strong narcotic, it wasn’t long before he was hooked. In desperation, he eventually turned to illegal means to procure them. The reports that he twice checked into rehab centers to break the hold these pills had on him seems to indicate that he knew what he was doing was both wrong and dangerous — and that he took responsible steps to correct this.

Let’s compare and contrast this scenario with your average citizen — we’ll call him Joe — who one day decides for whatever reason to procure some smack. Maybe it was peer pressure that pushed him into it. Or maybe life got rough, and someone suggested to Joe that doing drugs would make him feel a lot better about things. Either way, Joe does something he knows in advance is illegal. He approaches a drug dealer on a grubby street corner, money changes hands, and he walks away with his prize. He likes the effect it has on him, and so the substance abuse becomes a regular part of his life.

In either scenario, the drug abuse is inherently wrong, but there’s a subtle difference between Joe and Rush. Joe got mixed up in drugs because he bought the lie that they make him “cool,” or because he thought it would medicate his pain and insecurities, or because he heard it feels good. So he decided from the outset, “I’m doing to do something unlawful and immoral. I’m going to obtain and poison by body with a controlled substance.” Joe’s actions are laden with volition — it’s no accident that he obtains or even gets hooked on crack. It was his choice. Rush, on the other hand, got mixed up in drugs because he originally obtained them legally as part of a prescribed medical regimen. Along the way something went terribly askew. His addiction was accidental.

I would hope that sensitive, rational people can see the difference. The public figures I mentioned above obviously can’t. All they see is an opportunity to kick someone they despise while he’s down. And don’t think for a minute that they aren’t hoping Rush never gets back up. If compassion is supposed to be the hallmark of those on the left, then I have to wonder: Who are the real hypocrites here?

Blessings,

Rob

aka The MonT-SteR

,

Thoughts on Trent Lott

0
by on December 13, 2002 at 11:54 pm

What shall I say about Trent Lott?

I watched the video of his press conference (available at CSPAN), and I have mixed feelings about it. I guess I was hoping for a more visible display of contrition. It seemed to me that his prepared “mea culpa” was delivered in a dry and perfunctory manner. The word on the street, however, is that Sen. Lott is not known for overt emotional displays (say what you like about Bill Clinton, but that quivering bottom lip sure was effective).

Of course, Sen. Lott is out there publicly saying he’s sorry. He’s denounced racism and segregation as immoral, and expressed his regret (however distant that expression may seem) for uttering careless words that offended and hurt many people. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, so I imagine I’ll take him at his word.

Others are not being so forthcoming with the “forgiveness and forbearance” Sen. Lott asked for today. A lot of people just aren’t buying the “mea culpa” address. According to FOXNews.com, a large contingent of black lawmakers are refusing to accept his apologies. Although Sen. Lott has taken great pains in pointing out that he does not endorse the segregationist policies of the past, Rep. John Lewis, D-GA, continues to deride Lott for “condoning a period of history burdened by overt racism, violence, fear and oppression.” Furthermore, the Congressional Black Caucus has rejected Lott’s apology, continues to push for a censure against Lott, and demands that President Bush call for his resignation.

What does The MonT-SteR have to say about all this? If that question has just been burning a hole in your skull since this whole flap began, you came to the right place, my friend. Step right on up and find out how I spell relief!

Here’s my two-part answer:

  1. Whether Sen. Lott meant to or not, he touched a very raw nerve in this country. It’s undeniable that this nation is still suffering from the unhealed wounds of its sinful past. While I am not sympathetic to the view that America is a racist nation, racism undeniably exists in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. And it really wasn’t all that long ago that we did practice segregationist policies that coddled and endorsed the ungodly prejudices of previous generations. Sen. Lott said today that segregation was a stain upon our national soul. I agree, but I would intensify his words a bit. This feeding frenzy, ignited by Sen. Lott’s words, has revealed a festering, stinking wound that is crying out for healing. There are people today who still hurt, who are still angered by the racial discord that has sullied the storied existence of the United States. Government programs will not fix this. Affirmative action will not fix this. Crucifying Sen. Lott will not fix this. There is only one Person who can bridge the racial divides that exist in this country, and He is Jesus Christ — the Sun of Righteousness who comes with healing in his wings. And His people, the Church, have a responsibility. We are His ambassadors in this world, and we have been charged with a ministry of reconciliation (II Corinthians 5:18). That means the Church — all those who confess Christ in this nation — must be a community that transcends American racial and economic barriers. We must be a people that reaches out to all for whom Christ died, regardless of skin color, with His love and gracious acceptance. Jesus is the key to healing America’s racial wounds.
  2. Now, having said that, I have a bone to pick with Sen. Lott’s detractors. I agree that his statement at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party was unconscionable. But what I want to know is where all this moral outrage was when Bill Clinton was caught lying under oath and abusing his office in the most tawdry fashion imaginable. Clinton delivered his mea culpa address, and as far as you were concerned all was forgiven. Why can’t you extend the same level of mercy to Sen. Lott? A bit selective about our expressions of moral outrage, aren’t we? It makes me wonder how much of this upset is genuine, and how much if it is Oscar-worthy acting borne out of political calculation. If it’s the latter (and in many cases I’m sure it is), then your hypocrisy is stunning, to say the least.

YAWN! Well, there you have it. My thoughts on the whole Trent Lott flap. Forgive the incoherence — it’s past The MonT-SteR’s bedtime.

Blessings,

Rob

aka The MonT-SteR



in Politics

, ,

Latest Tweets

Javascript needs to be installed to view the twitterfeed. Get Javacript