Skip to content

“Chicken Boxing,” Cockfighting, and the Promise of a Fighting Chicken in Every Pot

Photo by Roman Köhler

Photo by Roman Köhler

On April 7, the Louisiana Senate passed legislation designed to close loopholes in the state’s 2008 cockfighting ban. If passed by the state House of Representatives and signed by the governor, the law would broaden the definition of “chicken” to include “any … gamefowl, rooster, or other bird.” It would also allow law-enforcement officials to use cockfighting paraphernalia as evidence in criminal prosecutions and make a first offense a felony, in keeping with the state’s dogfighting-related laws.

The legislation — Louisiana Senate Bill No. 523 — was introduced by state Sen. Jean-Paul Morrell and roundly criticized by his colleague, state Sen. Elbert Guillory, during a Judiciary C Committee hearing — video of which can be downloaded by following a link at the bottom of this Times-Picayune article by Emily Lane, who followed that April 1 report with this article published on April 7.

“I represent a rural area where people raise a lot of chickens, including chickens that are 15th, 20th generation fighting birds that are exported legitimately and legally to other nations,” Guillory said during the above-mentioned hearing. “I’m concerned that this law would criminalize that legal operation.”

Morrell was having none of it, telling Guillory that “it is not legal to raise fighting chickens for any purpose.”

So, Guillory tried another approach: having “chicken boxing” exempted from the proposed law.

“Dueling is a blood sport, two men fighting each other with swords is a blood sport,” Guillory said during the committee hearing. “It is illegal. … Boxing, two men boxing each other with boxing gloves on, can box each other as a sport. That is legal. … It’s the same distinction between chicken boxing and cockfighting.”

That didn’t fly with Morrell, either.

“If gladiatorial combat were still legal, that would be the analogy,” Morrell said, pointing out (in his own words) that the absence of choice is exploitation.

“I know that sometimes we get mired in what is culturally acceptable in the State of Louisiana,” Morrell reasoned. “And we get … mired up in trying to protect what is unique to our culture. But sometimes those things are not good.”

He went on to say, “It was not a badge of honor for us to be one of the last states in the United States to ban cockfighting. … When we encourage and allow things that are … widely viewed as barbaric and backwards behavior, cultural or not, that is not something that we want to be renowned for.”

Morrell’s legislation was reported favorably out of committee on April 1 and was passed by the full Senate on April 7, but not before Guillory tried unsuccessfully to add an amendment to the bill that would have exempted so-called “chicken boxing.”

During the April 1 committee hearing, a man (I use that term very loosely) named James Demoruelle boasted, “I’ve been a cockfighter for 53 years,” and declared that while “at this time I don’t own any game chickens,” he is hereby “repossessing his rights to fight my chickens.”

“God put the gameness in the chicken,” Demoruelle claimed, ignorantly. “Not man.”

Demoruelle’s argument, not surprisingly, is that animals are property and the government’s got no right to tell him what he can and can’t do with his property.

“Cockfighting is how we’ve harvested the gamecock for over 3,000 years,” is how he put it.

Which bring us to today, and to the acknowledgement that some humans are fighting (or is it boxing?) to turn our calendars back to the dark ages. Unevolved creatures like Demoruelle don’t like that they’ve been dragged from the primordial ooze and into the 21st century. And they’re making every effort to drag us all back into that fetid mire.

On the same day that Morrell’s bill was passed by the Louisiana Senate, I wrote about Matt Bevin, a Tea Party-affiliated Republican who’s hoping to oust U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell in Kentucky’s May 20 Republican primary election. Bevin attended and spoke at a March 29 cockfighting-legalization rally that appeared on his schedule as a “states’ rights rally.”

The event at which Bevin spoke was organized by a gang of bloodthirsty thugs called the American Gamefowl Defense Network, whose Facebook page indicates that “the American Gamefowl Defense Network, a project sponsored by the nonprofit Americans Watching Washington, is dedicated to legalizing cockfighting through the democratic process and the rights of expression and peaceful assembly.”

Cretins like Demoruelle — who identified himself at the April 1 Judiciary C Committee hearing as an American Game Fowl Society-certified “poultry judge” — are an organized bunch of subhumans who’re looking for a few sympathetic legislators who’ll work to make things even worse for animals than they already are. They whine about their rights being infringed upon by an overreaching government and then turn around and beg pandering elected officials and campaigning politicians to get involved. They insist that animals are property and demand the freedom to use that property as they see fit. They want permission to come out from their underground killing floors to exercise their psychopathic behavior on Main Street, alongside more mainstream savagery.

During the Judiciary C Committee hearing, Demoruelle cited a U.S. Supreme Court case called City of Cuyahoga Falls v. Buckeye Community Hope Foundation and said “the Supreme Court ruled the right to ownership of property includes the inherent right to use … one’s property.”

After boasting that “cockfighting is how we’ve harvested the gamecock for over 3,000 years,” Demoruelle told the committee that “animals … are harvested in different ways. Some … cattle we slaughter into steaks and hamburger and some we hook up to milk machines.”

Louisiana state Sen. Yvonne Dorsey-Colomb voted in favor of Morrell’s bill on April 7. On April 1, she was the legislator who made the motion to report the bill, favorably, out of committee, before Guillory could move to have the thing temporarily shelved.

While we should applaud Morrell for his efforts and be glad that his bill has been approved by the Louisiana Senate and will next be taken up by the state House of Representatives’ Administration of Criminal Justice Committee, we should take this opportunity to point out to Morrell, Dorsey-Colomb, and other well-meaning legislators that while they’re working to broaden current Louisiana law to close easily worked-around loopholes, they also ought to work on broadening their own perspectives.

In voicing her support for Morrell’s legislation at the Judiciary C Committee hearing, Dorsey-Colomb pointed out that despite Louisiana’s ban on cockfighting, people are still forcing birds to engage in brutal fights to the death.

“They’re still doing the things that this law prohibits them from doing,” she said. “So, if we can do anything to stop that … I’m all for it. I think that it needs to be stopped, and I’d much rather have people raising chickens so that … we can eat good.”

Needless to say, the promise of a fighting chicken in every pot is not exactly a future the animals can look forward to.

Joni Ernst: Castrating Pigs and Selling Savagery in Iowa

U.S. Department of Agriculture Photo

U.S. Department of Agriculture Photo

Joni Ernst would like us to believe that she’s qualified to serve in the U.S. Senate because she has a lot of experience mutilating animals. Ernst is one of five Republican candidates vying to run for the seat Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin will vacate when he retires at the end of his current term. And she’s leading the Republican primary field, according to the results of a Suffolk University Political Research Center poll released on April 9. The winner of the June 3 Iowa Republican primary election will challenge Rep. Bruce Braley, a Democrat, for Harkin’s Senate seat.

In a campaign advertisement that has delighted the drooling class, Ernst says, “I grew up castrating hogs on an Iowa farm. So when I get to Washington, I’ll know how to cut pork.”

The ad includes images of young pigs in stalls and ends with Ernst declaring, “Washington’s full of big spenders. Let’s make ’em squeal.”

Not surprisingly, “make ’em squeal” — which sounds like something out of Deliverance — is Ernst’s campaign slogan. It appears on the home page of her campaign website and on the merchandise she’s hawking — including cans of “pork rub.” Insultingly, the logo on that merchandise includes an illustration that depicts a smiling pig.

That Ernst is smiling in her campaign ad — that she’s boastful about the pain and suffering she’s caused — is disgusting. Equally nauseating is the fact that to the drooling class those optics are downright tantalizing. Predictably, Ernst has been endorsed by the right wing’s favorite female sadist, Sarah Palin, who’s been quoted as saying, “Any question about the type of Senator Joni will be? Check out her first ad — she makes it pretty clear.”

Indeed, Ernst is a dream candidate for the drooling class. She’s a god-fearing wife and mother from the heartland who serves in the Iowa National Guard and in the Iowa Legislature and has an “A” rating from the NRA. Conveniently (if not dutifully), Ernest stands for everything right-wing kingmakers would expect. All she has to do is memorize her Tea Party flash cards and boast smugly about the vast experience she has dishing out brutality.

Constantly, we read and hear that mouth-breathers like Ernst are simply feeding a little red meat to their conservative base. But what they’re also doing is getting and spreading widespread approval for morally unacceptable behavior. The word “values” appears 11 times in the bio Ernst has on her campaign website — a platform that, as one might expect, unabashedly oozes self-righteousness while asking for money. 

Some of those with whom Ernst’s attitude resonates might just send her a little bit of cash to help deliver her to Washington, where she can inflict her “values” on the rest of us and serve the greed-heads who’re running the holocaust. Ernst’s sickening campaign ad represents more than a little red meat for the drooling class. It’s more than a self-aggrandizing sales pitch that makes a metaphor of an ongoing atrocity. It’s a celebration of savagery. And that savagery is for sale. 

Voices of the Drooling Class, No. 2

Eleven-year-old actress Petulant Lunette reads a comment left on the blog by an angry reader.

The comment read here by Petulant Lunette was posted at The Daily Maul in response to “A Holleycaust Story,” a protest song that condemns “Squirrel Slam,” the annual squirrel-killing contest in Holley, New York, in which local Neanderthals compete for a chance to win guns and cash.

If you’d like to read a comment from an angry reader, send an e-mail to maul@thedailymaul.com.

On Tea Party Candidate Matt Bevin and Efforts to Legalize Cockfighting in Kentucky

Photo by jaybergesen

Photo by jaybergesen

Matt Bevin wants cockfighting enthusiasts to know that they’ll have a friend in Washington if he’s elected to the U.S. Senate in November. He indicated as much when he attended and addressed a cockfighting-legalization rally in Corbin, Kentucky, on March 29. Bevin, who’s hoping to oust loathsome Sen. Mitch McConnell in Kentucky’s Republican primary election on May 20, has said he was unaware that the March 29 event was anything but a “states’ rights rally,” which is how it’s described on his campaign schedule.

Naturally, Bevin would like to be able to count Kentucky’s cockfighting enthusiasts as supporters without drawing attention to their bloodlust-full interests. And he’s making a fool of himself trying to do the Potomac Two-Step.

According to the Corbin News Journal, “event organizers say the sole purpose was to build support to legalize cockfighting in Kentucky.”

The event was organized by the American Gamefowl Defense Network, a group of vile savages led by a Neanderthal named Michael Devereaux.

According to its Facebook page, “the American Gamefowl Defense Network, a project sponsored by the nonprofit Americans Watching Washington, is dedicated to legalizing cockfighting through the democratic process and the rights of expression and peaceful assembly.”

The inclusion of the word “peaceful” is as ironic as it is insulting.

Bevin wants us to believe that he had no idea that his audience in Corbin on March 29 was rallying for the legalization of cockfighting. If that’s the case, he and his staff are a bunch of alarmingly dim-witted hacks. 

I sent an e-mail on Saturday to Rachel Semmel, Bevin’s campaign spokesperson, requesting an interview with the bastard.

I wrote: “I’d like to nail (Bevin) down on his thoughts and opinions about the exploitation, torture, and murder of animals (cockfighting, for example, among other outrages). I’ve read that Matt claims he did not know that the March 29 states’ rights rally he attended and addressed in Corbin, Kentucky, was really a cockfighting rally. But let’s cut the crap, shall we? Matt’s running for federal office, and he opened the door for this conversation.”

I don’t expect to hear back from Rachel. Her job, after all, is to insulate “the candidate” from unsympathetic journalists. In other words, she’s Bevin’s Potomac Two-Step partner.

By not commenting on his unwitting appearance at a cockfighting-legalization event, Bevin is at very least betraying his willingness to bend over for whomever will help him get elected. He’s already got FreedomWorks behind him, not to mention Joe the Plumber. And if he wins the May 20 Republican primary and the midterm election, barbarians like Devereaux are going to come calling — and they’re going to want something.

The Corbin News Journal report indicates that “advocates don’t just want the state to legalize cockfighting. Devereaux said they want the state to regulate all aspects of it.”

So here’s Bevin, taking money raised through FreedomWorks for America — whose parent organization’s primary motivation is, according to its website, “a desire for less government” — and simultaneously pandering to a group that wants the government to “regulate all aspects of” the cockfighting industry (to quote once again from the Corbin News Journal).

The thing is, the American Gamefowl Defense Network doesn’t like McConnell at all. (And who does, really?)

According to a February 19 report in the Lexington Herald-Leader, “McConnell’s vote in favor of the federal farm bill has left cockfighting enthusiasts furious and threatening political damage to Kentucky’s senior senator in the May 20 Republican primary.”

The Agricultural Act of 2014 includes language that makes it illegal to attend an animal fight.

The Lexington Herald-Leader quoted Americans Watching Washington CEO Craig Davis — who’s also the president of the Kentucky chapter of the United Gamefowl Breeders Association — as saying, “This will destroy Mitch McConnell in Kentucky.”

That Lexington Herald-Leader report also indicated that “Davis said a number of his association’s members suggested Monday that they turn to Republican challenger Matt Bevin in the May primary.”

Devereaux hasn’t been as forthcoming.

The State Journal cited a statement in which Devereaux was quoted as saying, “The American Gamefowl Defense Network chooses to not participate in any interviews that concern any questions related to political races, political candidates, or issues not directly related to gamefowl.”

So neither Bevin nor his hosts at the March 29 “states’ rights rally” will talk about their courtship. And they certainly won’t acknowledge that at the root of their political problem is a shameful morality problem.

This isn’t about “states’ rights.” This is about a bunch of murderous psychopaths who want the government to help them delight in causing incredible suffering. And what those lowlifes are trying to establish is what that bloodstained entitlement will cost.

Rattlesnake Wranglers Cling to Gasoline, Entitlement, and Religion

Photo by Gary M. Stolz/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Photo by Gary M. Stolz/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

If ever there were a community of subhumans who deserve to be flushed from their trailers with gasoline fumes and slaughtered en masse, it’s the so-called “rattlesnake wranglers” who call Sweetwater, Texas, home. Not only do these useless lowlifes take pleasure in killing rattlesnakes, they’re predictably apoplectic over a proposed regulation that would ban the use of gasoline fumes to force snakes from their burrows.

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department has proposed the ban on “gassing,” as it’s called, because “current literature supports the conclusion that the use of noxious substances to collect or harass nongame wildlife negatively affects not only those animals that are being pursued, but other animals that co-inhabit or subsequently use a treated refuge,” according to a news release issued by the agency in December 2013.

That the folks at the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department needed “current literature” to figure that out is astounding. Let’s not allow that agency’s staff to hold themselves up as wildlife advocates. The department’s mission, after all, is “to manage and conserve the natural and cultural resources of Texas and to provide hunting, fishing and outdoor recreation opportunities for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.”

Not surprisingly, according to The New York Times, “the primary catalyst for the proposed ban was a petition sent to the agency last year signed by 57 zoologists and others, many from out of state.”

But let’s get back to the subhuman “rattlesnake wranglers” in Sweetwater, who are making all the usual rationalizations for their evil behavior.

As The New York Times reported, “the debate over the proposed ban has mushroomed into a larger, stranger battle that has … underscored the cultural divisions between urban and rural Texas.”

“Cultural divisions,” indeed.

A punk named Riley Sawyers was quoted in the New York Times story as saying, “If you’re into the Bible, snakes have intimidated people from the beginning, and I don’t think that’s changed to this day.”

I’m not “into the Bible.” In my book, which is a work of nonfiction, men are monsters whose extinction can’t come soon enough.

The New York Times story tells us that “every March, Sweetwater puts on the country’s largest rattlesnake roundup. … The snakes for the event are supplied by wranglers like Mr. Sawyers, the majority of whom use gassing to capture rattlesnakes in the rugged, dry terrain nearby. … The live diamondbacks are squeezed for their venom … and then slaughtered, all in front of the men, women and children at the event.”

A dirtbag named David Sager was quoted in the New York Times story as saying a ban on gassing “would be a devastating blow to us … The rattlesnake roundup is our ways and means.”

Obviously, Sager and his cretinous ilk don’t want to acknowledge that their dastardly behavior deals a “devastating blow” to the rattlesnake population in and around Sweetwater. In fact, participants in the annual slaughter believe that they’re doing charitable work. The “roundup” is organized by a ghoulish organization called the Sweetwater Jaycees, whose principals “use the proceeds to finance community projects,” the New York Times report tells us.

It’s as if there’s no other way to do good than to do evil.

Whether they’re citing their favorite fairy tale or insisting that they’re giving back to the community, the crackers of Sweetwater are simply rationalizing their monstrous behavior. These loathsome degenerates do indeed exist on the other side of a wide cultural divide that separates the subhumans from the more evolved cohort of our species, and the world would be a better place without them.

Monsters at Copenhagen Zoo Inspire Plan for Human Zoo

Photo by Tottelme

Photo by Tottelme

I’m looking into the possibility of opening a human zoo in Copenhagen. The legalities of the thing will no doubt present some challenges, but I think I’ve found a way to make it work — and to make some real money.

To be fair, my good friend Monty Gelstein is the one who suggested calling the facility a privately operated prison, and not what some folks would call an ethnological exposition.

The private-prison industry is a growing one here in the United States, which means there’s plenty of room for international expansion. Mine won’t be a prison for people who’ve broken laws enacted by humans. It’ll be a dark and terrible place that houses and exhibits human monsters who’ve trampled on morality — monsters like Bengt Holst, the Copenhagen Zoo’s scientific director, who last month ordered the brutal execution of a perfectly healthy 18-month-old giraffe named Marius.

Holst is all-but begging to be locked up in my human prison. On Tuesday, Agence France-Presse reported in an article published by The Guardian that officials at the Copenhagen Zoo have “killed two lions and their two cubs to make way for a new male.”

Unlike Marius, whose lifeless body was butchered and fed to lions in full view of zoo visitors, the carcasses of the slaughtered lions were not carved up in front of a ghoulish crowd.

A callous zoo spokesperson made that point clear, telling Agence France-Presse that “not all our animals are dissected in front of an audience.”

Well, I can promise that all prisoners who are euthanized at my human zoo to make room for newly arriving inmates (and they’ll all be euthanized sooner or later) will not only be butchered in front of an audience, they’ll be carved up by zoo visitors.

I’m fairly certain that such executions and dissections will take place on a daily basis. The facility I’ve got my eyes on is a rather small one that can only house a modest number of inmates, so I’ll have to rotate them in and out (and by out I mean off the face of this godforsaken planet) on a regular basis in order to exhibit all the monsters who deserve that treatment. And, naturally, I want to display the prisoners properly.

Psychopaths like Holst, for example, will be kept in filthy cages, while officials from prisons like those that SeaWorld operates will be forced to tread water in small, dirty pools until they drown — at which point they’ll be filleted by zoo visitors and fed to Holst and the other inmates.

Because Copenhagen is a long way for most people to travel, I’m planning to install a webcam system that will allow folks from all over the world to gawk at my human prisoners and watch when one or another has a bolt put through his head.

Port Authority Had 20,000 Animals Slaughtered, and Yet … No Scandal

Brussels Airport Photo

Brussels Airport Photo

News that callous bureaucrats at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey ordered the slaughter of more than 20,000 animals at area airports in 2012 and 2013 should be every bit and more the scandal that the George Washington Bridge lane-closure incident is. But it isn’t. And that’s because too many people accept madness when it’s branded as a “public safety” measure.

On March 2, the New York Post published a list of the animals Port Authority officials had slaughtered at area airports. The body count looks like a list of all the species who inhabit the region (and like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s lunch order).

The “public safety” argument is the same odious one that officials in Western Australia have used as an excuse for their monstrous War on Sharks, led by shark-cull cheerleader-in chief, Premier Colin Barnett.

In a January 28 commentary about that atrocity, and about Barnett’s lame, holier-than-thou rationalization for his savage policy, I wrote: “What Barnett is saying, essentially, is that he believes it’s his job to control what some people want controlled — no matter that a policy designed to control nature could only be implemented by a fucking madman and his thuggish henchmen.”

Like Barnett’s War on Sharks, the airport killing spree ordered by Port Authority goons is about control. The difference between the George Washington Bridge lane closures and the wildlife slaughter at area airports is that the former was the result of adult men and women controlling their political environment (to riff on Hunter S. Thompson’s famous line, “Politics is the art of controlling your environment”), whereas the latter was about men and women deciding that only humans are allowed on certain land and in certain airspace.

Obviously, and unfortunately, this isn’t anything new. We see it every day — that attitude whose basis is the arrogant belief that man is entitled to make all the rules, all the time. God forbid investigators learn that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 was brought down by birds. We’d immediately bear witness to an international preemptive strike designed to eradicate all species that could possibly collide with a commercial airliner.

Blowhards at the Port Authority and elsewhere will remind us time and again that Canada geese “brought down” U.S. Airways Flight 1549, and that many people would have died had Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger not managed to land the plane in the Hudson River — a crafty piece of piloting that made him a national hero.

In a May 15, 2012, commentary titled “Proposed Senate Bill Would Kill Canada Geese,” I pointed out that “there are those who expect wildlife to get the hell out of mankind’s way or be forcibly removed. … If we’re going to kill off each and every species that presents a potential threat to human safety, we might as well start with the biggest threat of all: Homo sapiens.”

While sentimental humans made a hero of Sullenberger, they made villains of Canada geese. And the brutish degenerates at the Port Authority put out a hit on any species that looked like a potential villain to them.

We could get into the math that reveals how statistically improbable it is that a “bird strike” will “bring down” a commercial airliner killing the humans on board, but we’d be having the same conversation we do each and every time a human dies as a result of an encounter with a shark. Getting into the math also gives legitimacy to the claim that even one human life lost is too many, especially when that loss is “preventable.” I’d remind the folks who make that assertion that any bird who unintentionally “brings down” a commercial airliner dies as a result. In other words, “bird strikes” are not carried out by suicidal, terrorist geese.

The lowlifes at the Port Authority who ordered the executions of more than 20,000 animals in the name of “public safety” are the terrorists. After all, only madmen implement policies aimed at controlling everything. And those madmen are enabled by apathetic rubes who buy what they’re being sold, no matter the ultimate cost.

Animal-Rights Advocates are “Bad Guys,” U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Says

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Photo

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Photo

In July 2013, Doug Jeanneret, the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance’s vice president of marketing, complained petulantly that trapping is “under attack.” In response, I told Doug that his “victimhood-based lament … has the pathetic stench of a bunch of terrorists whining about not having any friends.”

“It’s impossible not to be insulted by your paradoxical claim that trapping … is ‘under attack,’” I wrote, asking: “Who is under attack, Doug?”

Not surprisingly, the coward hasn’t responded.

In November 2013, after an anti-hunting group called Howling for Wolves delivered its message to fans at a Minnesota Timberwoves game, the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance published what I described at the time as a “word-tantrum” in which that organization’s president and CEO, Nick Pinizzotto, referred to Howling for Wolves’ message as “propaganda.” I pointed out in my response to Pinizzotto’s lame sob story that “what Mr. Pinizzotto and his jackbooted colleagues are really objecting to is being forced to crawl out of the primordial ooze to defend their psychopathy.”

In February, Pinizzotto let the world know that he is “angry” at having to “lead the fight against the bad guys.”

“Primarily,” he explained in a poorly written column, “the bad guys include anti-hunting organizations and animal rights extremists” who are “radical to the point of valuing the lives of animals more than humans.”

Pinizzotto’s chief gripe can be found in these lines from his ill-conceived screed: “For most people who have hobbies or deep interests in something, they can focus their time and energy on enjoying it without constantly looking over their shoulder for someone trying to take it away from them. If you’re an American outdoorsman, you do not have that luxury.”

Predictably, he’s trying to fire up the drooling class by saying the “bad guys” are “telling us how to live our lives.”

I’d point out that would-be victims of monsters like Pinizzotto would like to live their lives without looking over their shoulders.

Ridiculously, Pinizzotto and goons like him insist on playing the victims while they slaughter animals for fun. They behave like thugs then turn around and act like gutless wimps who’re being rolled for their lunch money — despite being the ones with the guns and bullets. They bitch about what’s being taken from them while they extinguish countless lives.

The cognitive dissonance is stunning. If countless animals weren’t being cut down for no good reason, we’d be laughing our asses off at Pinizzotto and his knuckle-dragging ilk.

They play the oppressed to take the focus off their brutalized victims — with whose lifeless bodies they pose in photographs then turn around and cry like entitled punks when more-evolved humans react adversely to those sickening images. 

No reasonably intelligent person could possibly look at a photograph of a hunter with his lifeless “trophy” and see a victim in the former. And only a psychopath could possibly identify a hunter as a “good guy.”

Drooling Class Lionizes Thug Who Murdered 500-Pound Hog

Photo by Steve Hillebrand/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Photo by Steve Hillebrand/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Predictably, the drooling class is making a hero of a lowlife cracker who shot and killed a 500-pound hog in North Carolina. The Greenville, N.C.-based CBS affiliate WNCT-TV reported earlier this month that “Conetoe hunter Jett Webb recently shot and killed a massive wild hog. He spotted the 500-pound, 8-foot-long beast in Bertie County near Indian Woods.”

You’ll notice that the report refers to the murdered animal as a “beast,” giving the incredibly inarticulate Mr. Webb (watch the WNCT-TV video) a lionizing pat on the back.

And, as one might expect, the reporter who filed the story saw fit to interview a scumbag named Mike Mansell, the president of the White Oak Ranch Hunting Club, on whose land the animal was slaughtered.

Mr. Mansell was quoted in the shamefully reported WNCT-TV story as saying, “They’re a species that is invasive … Once you have them, you’re not going to get rid of them. They just continue to multiply.”

(Note to Mr. Mansell: Do you know what other species will “just continue to multiply” if we don’t start managing it?)

Pigs don’t fly. The species was brought here to serve man’s monstrous desires. And this particular animal died to satisfy Mr. Webb’s apparently insatiable bloodthirst.

The subtext of Mr. Mansell’s comments is that Mr. Webb did us all a huge favor by slaying the 500-pound “beast.”

To hell with that.

Media outlets can drool over this story all they want and amuse the rabble with stupid and disgusting bacon jokes. And Mr. Webb can insist that his victim “will provide food for me and my family for a good year,” as he told WNCT-TV.

The truth of the matter is that Mr. Webb is a common thug who took a military-style weapon into the woods to satisfy his psychopathic desire to kill.

And that’s all the evidence I need to point out that if ever there were a species whose eradication would make the world a better place it’s ours.

The Relative Humorlessness of Veganism: A Nonjudgmental Lament

Photo by Monty Gelstein

Photo by Monty Gelstein

I was fretting over an essay I’m working on called “The Relative Humorlessness of Veganism: A Nonjudgmental Lament” when the red phone rang. It was my good friend Monty Gelstein, calling, quite coincidentally and unwittingly, to provide a case study. It was also an opportunity for me to amuse myself.

“So, I’m at this mostly vegan restaurant last night,” he started to tell me.

“What do you mean ‘mostly vegan’?” I asked, knowing it would annoy the shit out of him. “That’s like saying ‘mostly pregnant.’”

“I mean most of the dishes on the menu are vegan,” he said. “That’s not the point, though.”

“Right. Sorry,” I said, thoroughly enjoying myself. “So you’re at this mostly vegan restaurant …”

“Yeah, right,” he said. “So, I’m eating my dinner and I can’t help but to overhear the conversation this dude’s having with his wife at the table behind me. He asks her if she thinks Bill Clinton’s eaten there.”

“Where?” I asked him.

“At the restaurant,” he said.

“The mostly vegan restaurant,” I added, for clarification.

The line was silent for a good 10 seconds before Monty asked, angrily, “Do you want to hear the fucking story?”

I told him that I did.

“So, the dude asks his wife if she thinks Bill Clinton’s eaten at that restaurant, and she doesn’t understand the question. So he explains, ‘It’s a vegan restaurant, and Bill Clinton’s a vegan.”

“Is Bill Clinton’s really a vegan or mostly a vegan?” I asked.

After telling me that he no longer knew what the point of the story was (thanks to my scrutiny), Monty called me a pain in the ass and hung up. At some point I’ll let him know that he provided some good material for “The Relative Humorlessness of Veganism: A Nonjudgmental Lament.”