Korea and Dogmeat

South Korea is the only country where dogmeat is consumed. In fact, every year dogs are consumed by the millions in the country. Frankly, I wish that this notion could spread to the USA - where the pet population is out of control and animal shelters are filled to capacity and we have PETA killing 96% of the animals being "rescued" and we have old celebrities hawking the idea to "spay or neuter your pets" to try and ease the overpopulation.

In 1988, to try and improve popularity with some good publicity before hosting the Olympics, South Korea's capital Seoul banned dogmeat and snakemeat as "abhorrent food." Despite the much-ignored ban, South Koreans still eat between two and four million dogs every year and there are more than 500 dogmeat restaurants in the capital alone.

So what's a government to do?

They're trying to finally classify dogs as livestock.

The whole point of it is that a livestock classification would mean that dogmeat could get the food safety standards of the other meats being consumed in South Korea and protect the health of those eating it. Since dogs are not currently classed as livestock, there are no hygiene regulations on their slaughter at all. I think that even a vegan member of PETA would at least agree that if a slaughter is going to be done, it should be hygienic and regulated for safety.

I, for one, think this is a great idea.

I've always advocated the notion that things made of meat (other than humans) can be eaten. I will admittedly draw the line when it comes to humans - not out of any ethical or moral reasoning, but because that would mean that I could be eaten and that doesn't benefit me in the least. I'm also not that hugely in favor of eating things that could become extinct. However, I do believe that those animals should be bred in captivity like you would on any farm, just to keep the numbers up and set aside a nice fat percentage for consumption.

As for dogs, there's just too many of them running around. SOMETHING's got to thin out those herds. Cars aren't working fast enough, and no matter how many get their gonads removed as advocated by TV celebs, there's three more taking its place and breeding like crazy. The same goes for cats, but they're not as meaty as dogs. Perhaps a cat breeding farm could genetically create some meatier cats that aren't running and jumping around so much that their becomes stringy and tough; that's a possibility in the future. But we should be eating dogs.

It's certainly more humane to slaughter a dog in a hygienic and regulated facility and harvest the USDA-regulated meat to feed a low-income family than to inject it with poison and dump the carcass in a dumpster.

If you don't agree, you're obviously a member of PETA.

(The article about Korea and their dogmeat)


Read more!

PETA vs CraigsList

Apparently not satisfied with targets as large as Michael Moore, Paris Hilton, Britney Spears or even the NBA, PETA has decided to take a blind stab at something possibly bigger than all of them combined:

PETA is going after CraigsList.

For those of you unfamiliar to the series of tubes we call "the internets" - CraigsList.com is a huge internet site known for classified ads of all varieties. While it's most popular for personal ads, selling an eBay's worth of items and job offers - we're already aware of the darker side of anything large and internet-based.

The spam, porn site links and scams are one thing. You're pretty much going to encounter those anywhere. Recently, CraigsList has hit big in the media spotlight regarding "erotic services" ads and linking them directly to prostitution rings. But I digress, because PETA doesn't give a damn about PEOPLE being treated ethically, just ANIMALS (and maybe one of these days, they'll realize that human beings are animals as well).

PETA is attacking the website for their allowing of "free to good home" ads for people who wish to give their pets to others.

You know, those "cruel individuals" who'd rather spend the effort to find a new home for their pets instead of tossing them into the street or dumping them at an animal shelter.

PETA is claiming that the practice of giving away pets online should be banned from CraigsList because of one incident of an animal-abuser who admitted that at least one of the three cats he tortured and mutilated was obtained through CraigsList.

While I'm sure that this is NOT an isolated incident and that more than one animal-abuser has probably acquired an animal from CraigsList - I'm willing to venture a safe bet that it's a very small percentage when compared to those who acquire a pet thanks to CraigsList and DON'T wind up torturing or abusing the animal. That's like saying that if ONE serial rapist/killer targeted his potential victims through speed-dating events, we should ban all speed-dating because it enables serial rapists/killers. The logic itself doesn't even make sense.

You know what logic DOES seem probable in this scenario?

PETA just doesn't want you to own pets. PETA would rather kill them.

No, seriously. All of these people who want to give their pet to a good home, for free, obviously do not want their pet or can no longer own their pet. If they're banned from trying to advertise and give away their pet, odds are it will wind up on the streets or in a shelter. And we all know what PETA does to animals on the streets and in shelters.

PETA "rescues" them. By which I mean PETA takes the animals in, and over 90% of them are killed by PETA members.

Heck, they've even admitted to owning puppy-killing deathmobiles! Vans driven by PETA employees who go to shelters, pick up a few puppies and kitties, euthanise them with lethal injections IN THE VAN, and then dump the dead bodies in nearby DUMPSTERS.

Oh, but let's not allow people to give their pets to good homes and avoid the shelters! That would lead to crazy things like happy people with new pets and fewer animals for PETA to kill!

Now that I'm done with my logic-process of PETA preferring to kill animals than have them find good homes, I'll go back to the issue at hand - PETA thinking that CraigsList banning the use of their site to give away pets would mean less ability for animal-abusers to have access to animals. The way I see it, people (generally) CARE about their pets. That's why they put "good home" in their ads - because they don't want their pet to go to a person who might BE an animal-abuser. What's really causing the problem is when people post all of that, but don't really care about who their pet goes to. They don't bother meeting or talking to the person who wants to adopt their pet until the switch is made. The question is: if these non-caring people weren't allowed to post on CraigsList to give away their animal, wouldn't the animal just wind up on the street or in a shelter, where there's both little chance of it finding a good home and just as much chance of it winding up the victim of an animal-abuser? I mean, animal-abusers get their animals from SOMEWHERE - and I'm pretty sure most of them get pets through shelters. Or animals they find on the street.

Which all means that no matter what, animal-abusers are going to find animals. So it makes no sense whatsoever to try and limit one of those possible pathways, especially when it does so much more benefit than potential harm to the animals. I personally have friends who have found pets thanks to CraigsList - and they did so from caring people who interviewed them and talked to them before making the official switch.

So CraigsList - keep up the great work! Keep allowing pet owners to find new homes for their pets and letting them have the ability to choose who gets to adopt them.

And PETA - go find another target for your terrorist organization! Every animal given a good home by CraigsList is another animal that never has to see the inside of a shelter and run the risk of getting picked up by your puppy-killing deathmobile!

(PETA's press release about CraigsList)
(Petakillsanimals.org)







Read more!

PETA vs Vick: The Numbers Don't Lie

I'll agree with PETA on one thing (waits for the *gasp*s to cease): dogfighting and the preparations for dogfighting are cruelty to the animals. Few animals on the planet enjoy being electrocuted (notice how I said "few" - I know some twisted individuals out there). But with that in mind, PETA has gotten so worked up over the fact that Michael Vick participated (or stood by and allowed it) in the deaths of eight dogs.

Eight. Keep that number in mind.

I get it. Vick killed animals. Or rather, let them die. No, I'll go as far as to say he killed them, and I'm sure there are legal terms for criminally-neglegent homocide, except homocide is for killing people - is it "canuside"? "Canucide"? "Dogicide"?

Anyway, the point is that the ones who are pointing fingers and calling him out are the members of PETA. If there were ever a case of pots calling kettles black, these pots in particular would be black holes - so dark that no amount of light could ever escape the darkness that dwells in these pots. Because PETA certainly kills animals. "How many? More than eight?" - I hear you cry.

Try 14,400 since 1998.

It's a number that the Center for Consumer Freedom is trying to get out to the public, going to the point of taking out a full-page ad in the New York Times to illustrate the hypocrisy of this "humane" organization. The text of the ad reads as such:

Who’s killed more animals? Vick (8) or PETA (14,400):

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) loves to point the finger at others, when they should be looking at their own record of killing more than 90% of the animals left in their care. According to government records PETA has killed more than 14,400 animals since 1998.

In fact, PETA has been using the Michael Vick incident to sell shirts, gain subscribers, and otherwise profit from someone who's killed a mere fraction of the animals they've killed in the past year alone.

"PETA has shamelessly used the horrific Michael Vick case to pad their group’s coffers, even though their track record of slaughtering thousands of helpless, adoptable animals is far more damning," said CCF Director of Research David Martosko. "Americans need to be aware of how PETA treats animals in their care and reject the group’s overt hypocrisy."

I mean for crying out loud - two employees of PETA in North Carolina admitted personally killing dozens of dogs and cats in what was literally a "death van" and then tossing the lifeless bodies of the critters into a nearby trash dumpster.

Again, dogfighting and those who torture the dogs to prepare them for the fights are fine examples of cruelty to animals. I'm not saying that isn't the case. My point is that you can't take it seriously when the screams of cruelty are coming from those responsible for puppy-killing deathmoblies. You wouldn't listen to a serial killer speaking out against a man who committed second-degree manslaughter, so why would you listen to an organization responsible for killing over 14,000 animals speaking out against a man who killed 8? The math doesn't add up. The logic doesn't add up.

Yes, Michael Vick killed animals.
But PETA killed thousands more this year alone.

And they're still out there, killing more dogs and cats every day, all the while yelling how killing animals is wrong and cruel.

At least they locked up Vick. When are we finally going to arrest every member of PETA?

And don't even get me started on the other animal-rights terrorist groups...

(www.PETAkillsanimals.com)
(Their press release about the PETA versus Vick advertisement)







Read more!

Vick's Dogs Dying Anyway?

Yes, dogfighting is cruel. Yes, Vick and his cronies buying dogs, "training" them and then fighting them to the death is cruelty. You're not going to hear me say otherwise - it's a vicious thing to do and he deserves jail time for his misdeeds.

But at the end of the day - aren't they just going to die anyway?

Welcome to the life of pit bulls - a breed of dogs that has been bred over many years to be an aggressive animal used for guarding and attacking. Just as golden retrievers have been bred to be best at helping the blind get through their day as seeing-eye dogs, and just as border collies have been bred to herd sheep for their owners, and just as chihuahuas have been bred to shake nervously and pee - pit bulls were bred for vicious action.

No, I'm not blaming the dogs for the cruelty they were put through - I'm saying that they're the most likely candidates to fall victim to this bloodsport in the seedy underbelly of society. You're not going to train a poodle to kill in the ring - you'd want a dog that has the look and the potential to be a killing machine. Enter the pit bull. Then enter Michael Vick.

This guy and his friends admittedly purchased a location and owned a kennel specifically for these dogs. They trained them and put them through the wringers to hone in on their killing skills, and that does suck. But when you get right down to it, where do you draw the line between Michael Vick's dastardly ploy that winds up with winners and losers and potential death for any of these pit bulls - and the government's seizing of the pit bulls after locking up Vick and the others, creating a ticking clock for all of these animals to be simply put to death.

That's right - they're all destined to die.

Truth of the matter is, there's nothing anyone can do. They've tried notifying anyone they can of people who left their dogs at the kennel or sold their dogs to Vick and his cohorts. The dogs are sitting in shelters right now. The window to claim them was over a few days ago, 30 days after their initial seizure in late July. They're now currently owned by the federal government, and it's going to be a federal judge's decision that deems whether these animals live or die. Well, I mean live longer than if the judge demands euthanasia. Which is highly likely.

Even PETA - those douchebags who always pray for animal peace and welfare and then perform terrorist acts against businesses to "make a point" - says they're going to die. And PETA should know - over 90% of the animals "rescued" by this organization are killed and their carcasses are thrown into a walk-in freezer until they can be disposed of.

Says Daphna Nachminovitch, a spokeswoman for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, "There's no dispute over who owns the dogs. Obviously this is not going to be a process where someone steps forward and says, 'This is my dog, can I have her back, please?' These dogs are a ticking time bomb. Rehabilitating fighting dogs is not in the cards. It's widely accepted that euthanasia is the most humane thing for them."

And that's PETA talking!

The damage has been done. The dogs are now "damaged goods" and nobody's going to be able to take care of them. They're too aggressive (beyond the aggressive nature of the breed in general) to be taken in as pets. It's bad enough to watch a family adopt a pit bull, knowing their violent tendencies, but to adopt one that's already been TRAINED TO KILL? I don't think so.

So they're going to die anyway. Whether they stayed at Bad Newz Kennels and fought to the death as valiantly as possible until the bitter loss of defeat ended their career and life - or were kept in a fenced cell for 30 days until a judge banged a gavel and they were injected with a lethal cocktail and died quickly and without a fight - they will be dying soon.

So what's the lesson in this? Do we regulate the breeding of these animals so there are less of this aggressive breed around to have people train them and fight them in the underground dogfights that simply cannot be stopped? (Let's face it, even the police have no idea how to stop the dogfights from going on because they almost ALWAYS find out AFTER the fights and the damage has been done and nobody is arrested because it's too late to find anyone.) Do we try and up the ante and make the penalties harsher for these crimes that so rarely get caught - just to satiate the public when a rare arrest is actually made? Do we just kill all the members of PETA? (Sorry, that's just for my benefit, so one of these rhetorical questions rings out as "yes" for me.)

Truth is - I have no idea. Which isn't that horrible of a thing. But it's the fact that the government has no idea either. And we still can't even decide if it should BE the government's decision to make. After all, we are the humans and they are the beasts - that gives us the right to own them and eat them, so why not let us fight them? And why not let us eat them, no matter what the beast? When you look at the delicacies of THIS country, let alone those of other countries (rat buffet, anyone?) - don't you get the impression that if it's made of meat, we can eat it?

That's my solution, anyway. I've heard the saying, "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out." Well, mine's more of an "Eat 'em all and let the Intestines sort 'em out!" kind of plan.

Bob Barker led an amazing career of telling us to spay or neuter our pets to help control the pet overpopulation problem. I say that it's a lot more humane to kill 'em and grill 'em than it is to chop off their testicles and let 'em STILL wander the streets. We solve the pet overpopulation problem, and we provide meat to the impoverished, at home and overseas. We've already domesticated them and learned to breed them as well - isn't it a matter of time before they join the rest of the domesticated/bred animal kingdom like cows and pigs and sheep?

Now, before you go painting me as Cruella de Ville with a lovely Dalmation coat, it's just an idea. A crazy and seemingly insensitive one, true - but can you really argue that it's worse than rescuing over 50 dogs from a cruel underground dogfighting circuit and telling us that the only thing we can do for these dogs is to KILL THEM? At least in my version, a poor family can have Pit Bull Fajitas or something...

I'm open to hear other ideas - go for it. Tell me how YOU think we should stop what cannot be stopped - and then at the end of the day find something positive to do about it in the end. Because you can't stop the dogfighting. And you can barely attempt to stop the breeding of the dogs themselves. And you can't stop the killing of animals that can't be adopted even though you "rescued" them.

So what do we do? Leave a comment. Let me know YOUR ideas. Together, maybe we can do something...

(The article with the deadline and PETA bitch)
(A website with a friendly reminder that animal cruelty is bad - in case somehow we forget that)







Read more!

Dogfighting Bites

I'm not sure if I could ever be called an "animal lover". I mean, there have been animals in my life I've felt love for - but they're few and far-between. For the most part, I'm a man who believes that animals are made of meat and a pet is no substitute for a child. Non-human animals simply aren't human. And yes, I'm foolish enough to believe humans are better animals than non-humans.

So if all of that winds up putting a bias on my ideas about dogfighting in your minds, so be it. I have to be true to myself. If I weren't, I wouldn't be able to write these articles.

Dogfighting is cruelty. Even I'm sane enough to admit that. Pitting an animal against an animal for the sole purpose of profit and/or bragging rights, just because they don't know any better - that's cruelty.

That in mind, could you really expect better from our society? Wasn't it just a few thousand years ago that leaders of men were pitting humans against each other to the death? Wasn't it also just a few years ago that we brought it to the silver screen and the home television? And what about boxing, or the newer and more violent "ultimate fighting" competitions? Sure, that's done on a voluntary basis, and pretty much never to the death - but still evidence of human thirst for violence.

While dogfighting is illegal in all 50 states, it took until just a few months ago to get cockfighting banned in all 50 states. In fact, the last state's ban won't officially take place until 2008, I believe. Are we suggesting that the more "lovable" an animal is, the more offensive it is to pit them against each other in bloody battle? After all, a few of our first presidents were avid cockfighters. I mean they owned gamecocks and battled them, not that they actually fought against gamecocks or anything. That's just silly.

No, I'm not trying to defend dogfighting. Again, there's little way to see it as anything but cruelty. Of course, everything leading UP to the dogfighting, that might be a different story. After all, it's considered "damning evidence" just to be in possession of both a dog (whose breed is one commonly associated with dogfighting) and a piece of what is considered "dogfighting equipment". That's seriously all it takes to get a case going and a jury completely against you. THAT, I feel, is unfair. Dog owners have the right to train their pets to be as aggressive or passive as they choose. How they train them? That can border on cruelty, yes. Not feeding a dog just to make it hungrier and more aggressive is technically "neglect" - even though it's not being neglectful, it's just being cruel. As for things I've read about mixing dead bumblebees and gunpowder in the dog's food, to rile up the dog as stingers pierce their gums - that's cruelty AND stupidity.

Of course, I'm a man who'd love to lock people up for stupidity as much as cruelty.

Even so, I think the laws and penalties are fine where they are. If you're caught with supplying a dog for dogfighting, or being in charge of anything - that's up to three years in jail. Most of the training things, if you're caught, are rightly dished out as animal cruelty charges, most of which are one or three years. Attending a dogfight lands you up to a year in jail - this one I'm a bit against, mostly because police can never seem to actually track down a dogfight taking place, so why trump up the charges just for being there? As for bringing a child to a dogfight resulting in up to three years in jail, that one I'm more comfortable with. Of course, I'd see it more as "child endangerment", or just being plain stupid - which sadly isn't yet punishable with jail time in and of itself.

But that's fine as it is! We don't need "harsher penalties" all of a sudden. The punishments currently fit the crime, no matter how much you want a bad guy who hurts puppies to get locked up "forever and ever". But lately, there's a fad here in America where hot-button topics get overemphasized, overexaggerated, and overlegislated as a result. When that bridge recently collapsed, there was nothing but fearmongering, causing the closures of way too many bridges. We need to veer some of the news away from hot-button topics, so that the first time we pay attention to things isn't when IT becomes the new hot-button topic.

Dogfighting is cruel and illegal. It was cruel and illegal long before some NFL superstar wound up shedding twenty times the normal spotlight on the issue. It will continue to be cruel and illegal. That doesn't mean that just because it's the "in-thing" to be against dogfighting, that means that we need a hundred more harsher laws and punishments.

We just need to keep enforcing the laws we have, and if that's the best way to remind our law enforcement agents to shape up, so be it. I just want them to remember that there's a lot of human suffering out there and a lot more human victims every day than the counts of dogfighting victims being wallpapered over the newspapers.

I'm not saying they should ignore the poor victims of dogfighting rings. I'm saying they have to pay just as much attention to the violence befalling humans, too.

Read more!

PETA: Dogs WE Love Are BETTER!

That's right, you read the title correctly - PETA is at it again.

This time, they're doing something even more ridiculous than usual: they're attacking celebrities for buying instead of adopting. PETA has just decided that animals in shelters "deserve" owners more than animals available for purchase from a breeder or just a common pet shop. Protests were organized (of course) and as the protesters donned their Paris Hilton and Britney Spears masks, they waved their signs reading things like:

"Shelter Dogs Are Dying and I Don't Care"

Alright, let me get something straight right off the bat: these celebrities are being attacked because they purchased dogs rather than adopted from an animal shelter.

Really think about this for three seconds. There are two dogs. One is in a shelter, one is in a pet shop. Both are available to be taken home as somebody's pet. But because one was bred and has papers and you genetically know where it came from - that makes it worse to bring home and love? That's PETA's argument. That because you wanted a prettier pet that is the breed of dog you were looking for in the first place instead of one "slated to die" in an animal shelter - that makes you someone they can target in a protest.

Know the most hilarious part of this whole story??

PETA is protesting because these unadopted shelter dogs are going to be put down - but PETA is responsible for putting down so many shelter animals every year.

Their signs should really read: "Why did you buy that dog? Now we have to go kill one from a shelter!"

This whole thing is just insane. PETA, you idiots, the LAST thing you should be protesting is a person willing to take in a dog and care for it - especially those with enough wealth to care for it luxuriously. After all, you held your little protest right by your latest crazy billboard about "animal birth control".

That's right - PETA thinks that the best way to save animals from the shelters (where PETA will likely kill them) is simply to spay/neuter all of the dogs and cats in California.

WAIT WAIT WAIT - isn't PETA the insane group that wants us to leave animals alone completely, not to anything harmful to them ever (even things that aren't harmful but sometimes LOOK harmful or could be harmful if done in the completely wrong way) and to let them all roam free to do as they please? And yet they want it MANDATED to chop off the sex organs of every dog and cat in the state of California??

Well, PETA, two can play at your little CRAZY GAME!

Since PETA is so fond of taking situations animals find themselves in and then relating it to actual tragedies of human circumstances (remember the animal cages made to look like Holocaust concentration camps?) - here's one for you, Ingrid Newkirk!

Africa. Too many Africans. They're all dying of disease and starvation due to poverty. There's just too many of them to share the little resources they have. So instead of coming in and putting them out of their misery (why hasn't anyone thought of euthanasia in Africa?) - we're just going to cut off the testicles of every African man and remove the uterus from all African women. In time, the population will acheive balance once more and the few Africans left who avoided castration or migrated from another continent can live peacefully without dying of starvation and poverty from overpopulation!

Okay, so the plight in African countries is a lot more complex than simple overpopulation - but socioeconomic trends show that lower tiers of socioeconomic status have lots more children, so as to provide a bigger support structure over time. So there IS a lot of breeding going on, and one COULD theorize that sterilization could improve things. By killing off families by destroying their support structure and letting another family have a chance at their food and shelter...

No matter how you look at it, it's a grim picture. One grim enough to warrant a shock video sequence from the masters of terrorist propaganda: PETA itself.

Back to the matter at hand: PETA is usually up in arms about people owning animals in the first place, aren't they? When did "animal liberation" suddenly become "animals-other-than-pets liberation"? As soon as I'd heard about a protest regarding Paris and Britney purchasing dogs, I thought it was going to be in protest against animal ownership and "animals are not ours to own" bullshit. But I was wrong.

Because even PETA agrees that animals can be owned, and that it gives the owner the right to do whatever they choose to with that animal.

Don't believe me? I didn't think you would. That's why I've got a link to the PETA employee trial where the lawyer for PETA stated exactly that in his closing arguments: "It was PETA's property, and she had the absolute legal authority to put the dog down."

Still really pisses me off that those puppy-killers got away with it all.

And here's a little bit of extra thought, thanks to a provoked defense in a comment on LJ:

It doesn't matter either way. PETA wants all pets dead, matter-of-factly.

They don't want us breeding dogs and cats. Because breeding them means there's going to be more of them getting owned instead of adoptable pets from shelters. And the bred pets might wind up in the shelters anyway, given pet-owning trends.

They don't want animals breeding by themselves. Because if they "accidentally" breed, that's more "unwanted" pets being put in shelters and being "slated to die" - sometimes by PETA's own hands in a "rescue mission". That's why they're sponsoring billboards for a movement to spay/neuter all dogs and cats in California.

So if they can't breed themselves, and we can't breed them - that's the extinction of dogs and cats. At PETA's hands, all their arguments coming together. Hell, they kill over 90% of the ones they "rescue" anyway, right?

PETA would rather have them all dead. That's the logic I get from it.

But then again, you can't trust PETA with any form of logic...

Read more!

Advancing to a Cure for Cancer, HIV/AIDS

What a week it has certainly been for the medical field! While most were still blankly staring into the continued aftermath of the inanity of Paris Hilton finishing her jail sentence and claiming that it not only make a difference in her life, but that she wants it to make a difference in the lives of others and other Miss America contestant-like statements - scientists were working to actually MAKE A DIFFERENCE!

Mid-week, there were reports of the workings of a current possible cure for cancer.

Yes, I said "cure for cancer"! Still thinking about Paris Hilton now?? It's a freakin' CURE FOR CANCER we're talking about now - you know, actual NEWS about something IMPORTANT! While "cure for cancer" may technically be jumping the gun, when this blogger sees an article saying that scientists have been working on a vaccine to cure cancer in dogs AND it's actually working AND it has the potential to help cure it in humans as well...

That's what I'd call a step in the right direction and it warrants the use of the phrase "cure for cancer" - dog, human or otherwise!

Coco is a 13-year-old Pomeranian with malignant melanoma and Callie, a seven-year-old golden retriever, has the same cancer. Tucson Veterinary Oncologist Mary Kay Klein has been treating both dogs with an experimental Canine Melanoma Vaccine. Dr. Klein says tests have gone so well that recently the vaccine was conditionally approved for commercial use in dogs.

"Dogs are very much like people. They tend to be the same age proportionately as you and I are when they get these diseases. The diseases look the same underneath the microscope," said Klein.

Right now only cancer vets are approved to use the dog vaccine. The next step is to make it available to all vets and work on a similar human treatment is in process.

If you think THAT is a reason to jump up on a table and sing the cheers for humankind and its prosperity - there's MORE.

I just read an article today that says that scientists have a potential cure for HIV. That's right - scientists have discovered a way to remove the virus from infected cells! While it's no cure for AIDS, which is a later stage of the HIV infection, if you can cure the HIV virus, you can cure AIDS before it even happens! Just think of the implecations if this potential cure makes it that last step to an ACTUAL cure that eventually gets approved by the FDA!

Never mind the potential capitalistic nature of drug companies and how they'll poorly handle the manufacturing and marketing and sales of the drug - we could freakin' CURE HIV AND AIDS!!

The scientists engineered an enzyme which attacks the DNA of the HIV virus and cuts it out of the infected cell. The enzyme is still far from being ready to use as a treatment, but it offers a glimmer of hope for the more than 40 million people infected worldwide.

"A customized enzyme that effectively excises integrated HIV-1 from infected cells in vitro might one day help to eradicate (the) virus from AIDS patients," wrote Alan Engelman, of Harvard University's Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.

Current treatments focus on suppressing the HIV virus in order to delay the onset of AIDS and dramatically extend the life of infected patients. What makes HIV so deadly, however, is its ability to insert itself into the body's cells and force those cells to produce new infection. That enzyme was able to eliminate the HIV virus from infected human cells in about three months in the laboratory.

Okay, so the side effects are unknown thus far, and the method of using the enzyme needs to be further worked on before it can really be called a cure - but isn't this the biggest step forward we've had on the front against HIV and AIDS? Isn't this our largest push in a direction towards a cure? I say it's something to celebrate.

So earlier this week, a possible cure for cancer.

In today's news, a possible cure for HIV/AIDS.

Maybe this weekend we can finally get to work on cryogenics and subsequent immortality! Read more!