Oh my. You make me laugh, Waldo…

Posted by Joanna on 29 January 02007 @ 6pm

Creepy.

Posted by Cory Capron on 29 January 02007 @ 7pm

“One commenter points out that President Thomas Jefferson used to compete in cockfights, which doesn’t seem particularly sporting.”

What good are the history books I have? None of them mentioned this!

I don’t support cockfighting, but I find it curiously pleasing how international of a rural social custom it really is. Good ole’ boys from southern VA and muchachos from Chihuahua would feel equally at home in the arenas, surrounded by beer, poulty, and gambling.

Sunday’s Washington Post article was also interesting.

Posted by Adam Sharp on 29 January 02007 @ 7pm

Al Qaeda crashed into the WTC and the Pentagon to protest our abuse of animals?

Posted by JPTERP on 29 January 02007 @ 7pm

My filmmaking buddy an I have been talking about doing a documentary on Appalachian cockfighting for years. We went (incognito) to a cockfight near Elkton once, to see if we thought we could sneak a hidden video camera in… Needless to say, after seeing the types of people there (and the fact there was a law enforcement officer present, and not doing anything about it) led us to the conclusion that a cockfighting documentary is not worth getting shot over.

Posted by finnegan on 29 January 02007 @ 7pm

It must be the libertarian in me, but I don’t get what the impetus is to ban cockfighting and make it a freakin’ felony. Seems like liberals engaging both their pathological need to tell other people what to do and the smug feeling of moral superiority that comes with it.

Posted by Judge Smails on 29 January 02007 @ 7pm

Judge, I hate to keep pointing this out, but you keep bringing it up. The generalization about “liberals” is just overreaching – again. I’m beginning to think that it’s not the libertarian in you but the conservative apologist in you.

Does someone need to make a list of the things about which conservatives insist upon telling other people what to do? Are you really accusing the “Godless” left (Ann Coulter’s words, not yours or mine), as opposed to the right, of going after a “moral superiority” fix?

The arguement is about cockfighting and the perception some try to espouse that being against it equates you with the terrorists, etc – and the just grossness of cockfighting. I bet being for or against this crosses the aisle on both points.

Posted by va displaced on 29 January 02007 @ 8pm

I tend to agree with Judge Smails on this one. Granted it is only a class 6 felony, but the penalty still seems a little excessive too me.

This is the type of argument that the laws opponents should be using, not invoking the “Al Qaeda-like” disregard for civil liberties of the bills proponents.

I would be curious to know though Judge Smails, in this instance, is your objection to the criminalization of cockfighting, or the degree of criminalization proposed in this bill?

Posted by JPTERP on 29 January 02007 @ 9pm

One commenter points out that President Thomas Jefferson used to compete in cockfights, which doesn’t seem particularly sporting.

Is there anything TJ didn’t do?!? I’m going to have to edit the spiel I give during information sessions.

Posted by DeanJ on 29 January 02007 @ 9pm

Terp,

I would rather they left the whole practice alone. It’s not my cup of tea, but it seems harmless enough (unless you’re the cock, of course).

Like it or not, this is a big part of the lives of lots of good folks. It’s what they do on Saturday night, and what they spend time on in the evenings after work.

And then there’s the hypocrisy and heavy-handedness of using the power of the government to ban something one doesn’t like. It’s anathema to me.

The same kind of people loudly advocating banning cockfighting are most likely to be the same kind of cultural relativists when it comes to “imposing” western mores on foreign cultures. “Who are we to say female genital mutilation in Sudan is wrong?” they ask. But when it comes to smacking around a few yokels from the sticks? Let’s do it.

Posted by Judge Smails on 29 January 02007 @ 9pm

My first reaction was: Do we need a law for EVERYthing? Why don’t we just leave these people alone? After all, fighting appears to be a natural impulse for these birds. But then, I remember the part about the razor blades. That’s where they lose me. I wonder when the razor blades became part of the picture. Were the birds outfitted with them when Jefferson took part in this?

I happen to think that boxing is a horrific sport, but cripes, they don’t go after one another with razor blades attached to their gloves!

Posted by Janis Jaquith on 29 January 02007 @ 9pm

The supporting comments from these folks on Richmond Sunlight do them absolutely no favors. I could have been convinced that it shouldn’t be a crime, but after seeing the defenses offered by its strongest supporters, I’m not sure that’s going to happen.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 29 January 02007 @ 9pm

Thanks for the thoughts Judge Smails.

Personally, I have no problem with a misdemeanor charge. Government is within its rights to regulate human activity and public morality (even if it involves poultry fighting). I tend to lean more towards the libertarian arguments for non-interference on this as well though.

Posted by JPTERP on 29 January 02007 @ 10pm

Did you know that our men and women are serving in Iraq to protect our right to attach knives to the legs of chickens, fight them to the death, and gamble on the outcome?

So do they have BBQ Rooster afterward?

But seriously…

What are the penalties for Cruelty to Animals? Why shouldn’t this be covered under that law? I think it’s an awful sport, and it’s practitioners disgusting people.

Posted by TrvlnMn on 29 January 02007 @ 11pm

Some of these guys heard there was a cock fight and stayed up all night lubricating their zippers.

Posted by analog man on 29 January 02007 @ 11pm

A friend and I took a road trip to Nashville over the past winter. We stayed at a number of extraordinarily cheap hotels, and along the way had breakfast with a number of truckers. One of them sat us down, and said that the only two genuine things to worth living for in this world were moonshine and cockfighting.

We knew roundabouts where the conversation was headed at this point. But he was quite a friendly guy, so we kept talking, and eventually he asked where we had come from. We both say Richmond, VA, and he nearly falls out of his chair.

“Richmond? Heck, Central Virginia is one of the best spots for cockfighting on the whole East Coast!”

I have to say, I was pretty amazed. All along, there has been a grand cockfighting underground here in quiet ole’ greater Richmond.

Posted by Joe on 30 January 02007 @ 10am

If it were me writing the bill, I would say ban the razor blades but allow it to continue otherwise. It’s the knives that turn it into pointless cruelty.

Roosters already want to fight each other to establish dominence. I’m not sure that a bunch of guys standing around and egging them on is any different from me watching a pair of hippos lunge at each other on the Discovery channel.

It only serves the aims of the most radical members of groups like PETA when people advocate for an ‘all or nothing’ approach to the question of animal welfare. I hunt and eat meat and wear leather but if I had to decide between either my never eating meat again versus having to, say, allow the vivisection of primates, I would honestly stop eating meat.

We use animals for stuff. We eat them and make useful objects from their skin. Humans are omnivores designed to eat meat. That’s the way it is. But that doesn’t mean torturing them, which is what the thing with the razor blades amounts to.

Posted by Jack on 30 January 02007 @ 11am

I think it’s safe to say that we also need to outlaw cat juggling.

Posted by Kevin on 30 January 02007 @ 12pm

From my understanding, and I have never attended a cockfight, alot of politicians have attended these things in the past. Alot of Judges, sheriffs and others join right in w/everyone else. My point is I don’t think it will fly (pun intended)through the GA. I think it will not become a felony.

Posted by Boxer4h on 30 January 02007 @ 2pm

One of the stranger things about these comments is that so many of them cite the Revolutionary War and England. It’s weird enough to have people talking about “double-you double-you eye eye” and how we’d all be speaking German if it wasn’t for X, but the King? It’s a bit ridiculous.

The other problem is that they’re fighting against a nonexistent enemy, lobbing bomb after bomb against groups that I’ve had to google to figure out what they’re talking about — HSUS (Humane Society), ARA (Animal Rights Associations?), ART (?), etc. The particular trouble with this tack is that most people love groups like the Humane Society. So when forced to choose between a bunch of angry strangers and a familiar organization — when no evidence is presented by said angry strangers — most folks will pick the organization every time.

Consequently, they’re persuading nobody. It’s some of the most ineffective lobbying that I’ve ever seen.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 30 January 02007 @ 5pm

I agree, Waldo. But lobbying is not the cockfightng proponents’ raison d’etre. Their lack of sophistication when it comes to lobbying/persuasive blog posts/whatever should not undercut the fact that they have a legitimate gripe here. It may not come out in their favor in the end, but maybe their very lack of familiarity with the process is reason enough for fair-minded people to think twice before rushing this law through the GA.

Posted by Judge Smails on 30 January 02007 @ 6pm

Their lack of sophistication when it comes to lobbying/persuasive blog posts/whatever should not undercut the fact that they have a legitimate gripe here.

I don’t believe I’ve seen one person express what that gripe is. Their logic is of a tissue paper consistency. There are three primary arguments put forward: “this should be legal because it’s been legal for a long time”; “I have the right to do anything I want with my property, without restrictions”; and “other bad things are also legal.” All are terrible, terrible arguments.

I’m yet to see a single logical, coherent explanation put forth on Richmond Sunlight as to why this bill shouldn’t be passed.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 30 January 02007 @ 7pm

“I’m yet to see a single logical, coherent explanation put forth on Richmond Sunlight as to why this bill shouldn’t be passed.”

Ironically enough, there’s been more than a few decent points made to that effect on this blog – probably by people who have no dog in this fight (heh, heh).

Personally, I’m kind of partial to the “allow cockfighting, call putting razorblades on them animal cruelty (really, what’s the point in the blades?)” idea of Jack’s and punish as is already on the books.

Posted by va displaced on 30 January 02007 @ 9pm

What is this? You are completely against cockfighting but yet you are one of those nosey asses that are “patroling” our boards. Cockfighting is an age old tradition. These people have been raising these birds all of their lives. To make a felon out of an 85 year old man who has done this all of his life is completely CRAZY! Our tax paying $$$$ should be spent on things that are actually a problem. Cockfighting & crime haven’t been a big problem in association with eachother here in our state. If we are going to target cockfighting then lets talk about the horse racing, dog racing, rodeos, etc. that we gamble on. These animals are actually TRAINED for these sports. If you don’t like the sport then stay away but don’t take it from those of us who do.

Posted by Tiffany Woodall on 31 January 02007 @ 3pm

You are completely against cockfighting but yet you are one of those nosey asses that are “patroling” our boards.

a) I am? Have you read anything that I’ve written here?
b) Patrolling your boards? Aren’t you “patrolling” mine? Or is it possible that both are simply websites that are open for everybody to read?

Y’all are doing yourselves no favors with this blather. And, a hint, there’s no such thing as the “Roanoke Sun Times.” It’s Richmond Sunlight. It’s a website. I made it. It’s what you’re posting your comments on. If you were from Virginia, you would know that’s our state capital.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 31 January 02007 @ 4pm

this bill is unconstitunioal in case you hav’nt noticed. the instrumentality clause violates my freedom of speech rights ,and if it passes i will sue the federal goverment for violating my civil rights ,as will all others who believe their rights have been violated.end of story

Posted by joey bigtime on 31 January 02007 @ 3pm

The law is being widely supported simply because there are many people who know nothing at all about the nature of the things involved. They think all of nature operates with compassion. The Animal Rights Terrorists think the Mountian Lion in California that ate the guy on that bike trail and attacked a woman later that month last year has every right to do so. They’ll also side with the Lion that attacked a man in CA last week. In fact they’re responsible for the uncontrolled presence of these dangerous animals in Human recreational areas and used the same type of emotional appeal to accomplish that goal as they are now using to ban cockfighting. There was once a time when you could protect yourself and your family from these dangerous animals, but you better not try it now, it’s against the law to hunt them. They also fervently want to ban cockfighting. It’s all about who will ultimately control all animal use. They got to go one step at a time and use each victory as a stepping stone to the next. The more individual rights we give up, the more control the big Animal Rights Organizations have. Just wait until they control all animal agriculture, and all slaughtered animals must be approved through them. Your kids gonna have a heck of a grocery bill! Oh, and if you want a pet you gonna pay through the nose and meet their standards before you can have one. It’s gonna be a sad day when they reach their goals and even sadder that we helped them enslave us because we ignored their plain spoken and written goals. It’s all ultimately about controlling the food supply.

Posted by Jerry Golden on 31 January 02007 @ 6pm

The Animal Rights Terrorists

You will convince nobody of anything using phrases like that. Once you start tossing around the word “terrorist” to describe opponents of dogfighting, bearbaiting, etc., the only people who will side with you are those who already agree with you.

Pretend you’re trying to convince us to vote against our own aunts, or long-time acquaintances. If you tell me that my aunt is a terrorist, I’m not going to listen to anything else you have to say. But it’s possible for you to persuade me that her positions are inferior to those of another candidate’s, and in that manner you might convince me to vote against her.

Once I saw the phrase “Animal Rights Terrorists,” I ignored everything else you wrote. That hateful hyperbole serves only to support this bill.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 31 January 02007 @ 7pm

Or you could perhaps ignore that phrase and read the rest of the article? I will read all of yours if you don’t bring your aunt into it again! OK?

Posted by ron on 31 January 02007 @ 8pm

It’s not harmless. They caught MS 13 gang members congregating at the pit the cops raided in Mecklenburg County. Cocaine and meth was seized along with $40,000 in gambling money. On top of that, a bunch of kids as young as four years old were there, watching the gambling, the animal abuse and the drug dealing. Yea, great thing to have in the community.

Posted by Hank on 31 January 02007 @ 8pm

As I stated the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)coined that term. Not me.

No you didn’t. You didn’t say a word about that.

So please explain to me why we should not refer to them as Animal Rights Terrorists?

Listen, I’m giving you free advice. You can take it or leave it.

When you call them “animal rights terrorists,” you lose that debate. Imagine if I called President Bush a terrorist. After all, he’s referred to as such by people around the world. I’ll bet that some people could demonstrate that, within the letter of the definition, there’s some way in which he qualifies. So are they factually right? Sure, let’s say so, for the purpose of argument. But will they convince the average Republican to vote against President Bush by calling him a terrorist? Of course not.

Please, yes, go ahead and call opponents of cockfighting “animal rights terrorists.” Because the more that you use such terms, the more likely that you are to lose this fight. And, frankly, as a group, you’ve done absolutely nothing to demonstrate to me that you should win it.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 31 January 02007 @ 8pm

Sir:

Waldo, you are a hoot! I do owe you an apology, however, for the FBI thing; I didn’t say that was were the term came from in my first message. You are absolutely correct and I am humbled. However, as for your free advice, I think I’ll leave it. “Terrorist” is a valid term for those who commit arson and murder in the name of “animal rights” or any other cause. Gee, I haven’t read in the news about any cockfighters killing medical researchers or committing arson against valid legal commercial enterprises. Have I missed something? All kidding aside, ignore the Animal Rights Terrorist thing and read the rest of the article. And, if you won’t bring up your aunt again, I’ll read your complete reply too.

Posted by ron on 31 January 02007 @ 8pm

Dear Waldo, I must ask you after your last statement, why are you having this pole . I must add regardless of your oppinion the results are greatly against this bill. For I am fighting for my human rights not animals.

Posted by Ray Burgess on 31 January 02007 @ 9pm

Dear Waldo, I must ask you after your last statement, why are you having this pole .

Ray, it’s an entire website. There are 3,115 polls, one for every bill introduced into this year’s session of the Virginia General Assembly. This is just one of them. But the results of the poll are irrelevant, in no small part because it’s participants are almost entirely located outside of the state of Virginia.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 31 January 02007 @ 9pm

Ha!
the cockfighters are nothing but a bunch of animal abusing losers. they’re like the illegals from mexico – they break the law and then complain that they’re being discriminated against. joeybigtime is an ex-con who continues to break the law – so much for re-hab at MS D.O.C. huh? hope they nail yer ass again…

Posted by ara1 on 31 January 02007 @ 9pm

Jesus, Mary & Joseph.

Posted by Judge Smails on 31 January 02007 @ 10pm

Y’know Judge, I think I’m with you on that one …

Posted by va displaced on 31 January 02007 @ 10pm

Mr. Jaquith, thank you for providing a forum for debate and expression. These A.R.A groups are a conglomerate of organizations which aspire to be as powerful as the N.R.A. except they don’t fight to protect rights, they Seek and Destroy them by any means necessary. They are a much greater menace to society and its infrastructure than some poultry farmers ever could ever be. Your free to side with whoever you wish, just don’t whine and whimper when they challenge your ideas of truth. It’s a propaganda machine and I ain’t buying. Here’s some recent media from both sides of the issue, you decide.

I found this grossly distorted, obsessive and oppressive:
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=891175194

Here’s how much help these A.R.A. groups were in Colorado:
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3212

P.S. – In regard to the poll, there was a very questionable poll posted recently on a media site that had its validity questioned (didn’t give users an option to oppose) and then was subsequently published…

Posted by Jayp on 31 January 02007 @ 11pm

Jayp, the only evidence that you’ve provided to support your position is a link to a press release from PETA’s ideological opponent, The Center for Consumer Freedom. If these organizations “don’t fight to protect rights, they Seek and Destroy them by any means necessary” and are “a much greater menace to society and its infrastructure than some poultry farmers ever could ever be,” then surely you can find some sort of an article from a respected journal or media outlet that demonstrates that to be so.

That video was baffling. I have no idea what I was looking at.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 1 February 02007 @ 12am

Or you could perhaps ignore that phrase and read the rest of the article?

I read the rest, but you — like “Jayp” — have provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support your opinion. There’s not a shred of information in there that would convince me or anybody else to agree with you. Not a single fact is stated, no supporting evidence is provided. It’s just you blathering on about God knows what.

Here’s my last political tip to you guys, because life’s too short to keep providing advice to people who seem totally unwilling to accept it. If you want to persuade people that cockfighting should be legal, you should:

1. Express your opposition to attaching shivs to the birds’ feed. Because that’s just fucked up, and nobody in their right mind supports that.

2. Express your opposition to gambling on cockfights. You are confusing two issues — gambling and cockfighting — that two different constituencies oppose. Social conservatives (Republicans) oppose gambling on moral grounds, while liberals (Democrats) oppose cockfighting on ethical grounds. By supporting gambling you alienate all possible supporters, rather than half of the possible supporters.

3. Provide evidence — peer-reviewed studies — that chickens do not feel pain, distress, etc., at least as humans understand these feelings. (This is how animal lovers justify eating lobster.) If you cannot demonstrate this, then your position is indefensible, and you will never, ever win this debate.

4. Stop attacking humane societies and the like. Humane societies are universally loved. Yes, you don’t like them, but your assumption that others join you in that dislike is utterly faulty. If these groups are saying something that’s wrong, rebut it. But when you just come in gangbusters, freaking out about “HSUS,” “ARAs,” and the SPCA nobody has the slightest freaking clue of what you’re talking about, those that do recognize the acronyms feels defensive towards groups that they love. Hint: Most people with dogs or cats picked up the critter at the SPCA, and so they like the SPCA. You shouldn’t attack the SPCA any more than you’d attack somebody’s grandmother.

5. For the love of all that is good and holy, start using spellcheck or grammar check. I have never encountered a constituency so utterly incapable of assembling a coherent sentence. It’s absolutely apalling. I cannot stress enough how seriously this undermines your ability to influence public policy.

6. Shut up about England, the constitution, the Civil War, etc., etc. Constitutional rights don’t have jack to do with cockfighting, and you know it. You’re convincing nobody, and only making yourselves look silly. And especially stop saying “it should be legal because we’ve been doing it for years.” People did all kinds of stupid shit for centuries, from slavery on down. “We’ve been doing this for a long time” is no justification whatsoever.

There’s my advice. You can take it or, as is probably more likely, insult me.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 1 February 02007 @ 12am

I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR WAESTING MY TIME TO READ WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY. HERES MINE FOLKS LIKE YOU HAVE MADE THIS COUNTRY FOR WHAT IT STANDS FOR TO DAY. YOU NEED TO WORK ON TRYING NOT TO PUSH WHAT YOU THINK THAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG . I HAVE BEEN AROUND CHICKENS ALL MY LIFE AN I KNOW A LOT OF HARD WORKING FOLKS THAT HAVE THEIR CHICKENS AN THERE FAMLYS ARE TOOK CARE OF .I CANT SAY THAT ABOUT YOU. YOU PUT ME IN A HARD SPOT AN I DO NOT WHANT TO DROP TO YOUR LEVEL .I DO NOT JUDGE ANY ONE .WHEN IT COMES TO PEPOELE LIKE YOU MAKE IT HARD. JUST BECAUSE IT IS FOLKS LIKE YOU THAT TOOK THE RIGHT FROM SHCOOL KIDS TO SALUTE THE FLAG OF THIS COUNTRY .VOTED OUT THE RIGHT FOR THEM TO PRAY .WHEN YOU GO TO A SHCOOL THAT HARD WORKING TAXS PAY FOR DO YOU SEE A BIBLE ANY WERE. WHEN ARE FOLKS LIKE YOU GOING TO GET IT. YOU CAN MAKE LAW ALFTER LAW PUT YOU NEED TO CLEAN YUOR OWN DOOR STEP. SO YOU ARE AGAINST COCK FIGHTING .HOW DID THAT STAKE TAEST. SOME THING HAD TO DIE IT WAS NOT GROWEN IN A FEILD`.WHAT ABOUT THE WAY THEY KILL CHICKENS IN A PLANT, I HAVE WORK AT ONE SOME ARE NOT DEAD BEFOR HOT I MEAN HOT WATER POURS ALL OVER THEM BEFORE THEY ARE DEAD, WHANT SOME FRY CHICKEN.

Posted by YOUR A JOKE on 1 February 02007 @ 2am

I’ve enjoyed the chat, there’s been plenty enough said on either site for an educated man or woman to figure it out.

Posted by Jayp on 1 February 02007 @ 2am

DONT UNDER STAND writes:

VOTE NO ! PEOPLE WAKE UP .YOU KNOW AN I ALSO KNOW. EVERY ONE HAS SOME THING TO SAY EVEN ME.WHEN THIS BILL HR137 DOES NOT PASS SET BACK AN SEE HOW YOUR TAX DOLLARS WAS SPENT FOR CHICKENS THAT YOU CAN NOT EAT.THEN ON THE OTHER HAND THE BILL HR137 PASS ITS A LAW NOW. THEY JUST RAID A COCK FIGHT. THE PEOPLE THEY GOT WERE CHARGE WITH CLASS 3 MISDEMEANOR/6 FELONY .THEY WERE 30 PEOPLE . 20 OF 30 ARE WORKING MEN WITH FAMLYS.THE MEN GET PUT IN JAIL FOR 2 TO 3 YEARS. LETS SAY A 1 YEAR. THE WIFE NEEDS HELP WITH THE BILLS AN THE KIDS HEALTH INSURANCE. SHE GOES TO THE GOVERMENT OFFICE TO APPLY FOR FOOD STAMP AN MONEY IN THE MEAN TIME HE IS IN JAIL FOR THAT YEAR. HE WILL GET FED THREE TIMES A DAY ROOF OVER HIS HEAD .HE WILL HAVE TO PAY A FINE THAT THE STATE DONT MAKE NO MONEY OFF AT ALL ITS GOING TO BE HARD FOR HIM TO PAY HE LOST HIS JOB. LOOK AT THE COST TO KEEP A PERSON IN JAIL FOR THAT YEAR LET SAY $2000.00 THAT WOULD BE CHEAP.REMEMBER THIS IS 20 MEN ADD THAT UP $40.000.OO AN THIS IS NOT ADDING WHAT THE WIFES NEED HELP WITH LETS SAY SHE GOT $500.00 A MOUNTH .REMEMBER THIS IS 20 WIFES $10.000.00. THEN THE KIDS HAD A MEDICAL CARD. WITH MEDICAL PRICES SO HIGH FIGGER $1000.00 THAT WOULD BE CHEAP.REMEMBER 20 WIFES 20.000.00. WE STILL HAVE TEN MORE PEOPLE THAT IN THE LONG RUN WILL HAVE YOUR TAX DOLARS SPENT TO SAVE A CHICKEN .WHEN WE ALL KNOW THERE ARE A BETTER PLACE FOR IT TO GO LIKE SHCOOLS RETRAINING OUR VET WHEN THEY COME BACK…VOTE NO ON HR137 I AM ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT WILL SPEND YOUR TAX DOLARS … I SPENT TO MUCH TIME ON THIS WHEN YOU ALL PUT TO MUCH MONEY IN THE WRONG HANDS OF THE COUNTRY GOVERMENT.

Posted by YOUR A JOKE2 on 1 February 02007 @ 4am

You can take it or, as is probably more likely, insult me.

YOUR A JOKE

One hour and forty forty minutes! Ladies and gentlemen, we have a new world record!

I am from Virginia. I have been a resident of this state for 12 year now.

Tiffany, you linked to your own MySpace page in your post here, in which you write at the very top that you are from Eden, North Carolina. Farther down the page you explain that you went to Rockingham Community College and John M. Morehead High School, both in North Carolina, and that you currently work in accounting in Reidsville, NC. You will note that what all of these places have in common is that they are not, in fact, in Virginia.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 1 February 02007 @ 10am

[Quote]And, a hint, there’s no such thing as the “Roanoke Sun Times.” It’s Richmond Sunshine. It’s a website. I made it. It’s what you’re posting your comments on. If you were from Virginia, you would know that’s our state capital.[/quote]

I am from Virginia. I have been a resident of this state for 12 year now. I am not going to get on this & debate with you over issues that you obviously know nothing about. You say that our debates are only huring our fight ~ We are giving our opinion on a matter that we feel strongly about.

Posted by Tiffany Woodall on 1 February 02007 @ 9am

This is that rare occasion where proponents of a position with which I initially agreed have, by virtue of their sand-poundingly stupid advocacy, convinced me that whatever they favor the correct course must be 180 degrees in the opposite direction.

Posted by Judge Smails on 1 February 02007 @ 12pm

This is certainly an unexpected side-effect of Richmond Sunlight.

I will go with the judge on this one, although I generally think cockfighting is disgusting and repulsive. (The whole 180 degree thing)

As for the commenters here, evidently, they couldn’t spell “John-boy” so they had to use pseudonyms. I know, how politically incorrect, right? Well, this was not my first choice for that part of my comment, but out of respect for Republicans, I tempered my remarks.

Wheeeeee!!

Posted by Mark Brooks on 1 February 02007 @ 3pm

I say NO! To SB 1190 and any other bills of its nature. For reasons as follow violation of the entrapment laws of the USA it’s definitely a contender for this law, and other rights I should have. For my home state is illegal, others are not. So I should have the right to travel to a legal state, for the obvious reason of keeping my criminal record clean. If this bill and many others like it pass then I am forced to make the choice, break the new laws, if in fact I want to keep and use my fowl. For game Fowl have only one true purpose on this earth, his purpose is not for food or companionship he is in fact unique, not only buy the Webster’s Dictionaries, he is crude, and has a will beyond measure, in his own natural state he is also cruel in some since for he will do what comes natural to him when domination factors apply. all other animals and fowl as a rule co exist, the gamecock cannot and will not co exist with another male gamecock. This has been proven by a university study on behalf of cockfighting, that game cocks will naturally fight, and in most cases till death or till stopped by fatigue. But yet this evidence plays no part in there or our defense against new laws that affect the sport of cockfighting. There are only 2 answers to this, one would be legalize cockfighting and collect the taxes from this enterprise as it should be, or you people that condemn this sport, and back these laws. Animal group members or not the out come in fact will be the total elimination of the game fowl themselves, for they will be in the same category then as a broken television, its purpose is to watch and if it don’t play why keep it.

Someone said on this subject own all the chickens you want just don’t fight them.
For the people on the other side of the fence what would you say to this comment,
Own all the televisions you want just don’t watch them, why in the hell would anybody want to own something they can’t use.

As a person I am attacked by idealist for allowing these cocks to be themselves, after all isn’t that the objective here. I am categorized as unethical well “ethical” means relating to morals or moral principles, philosophy which treats of human character and conduct, of distinction between right and wrong and moral duty and obligations to the community.
As already stated my criminal record is clean, I live in harmony with the community, I believe in God, what more as a citizen must I do. I also treat my fowl better than most people are. We as a group localize not in an attempt to avoid the law, as is public knowledge there are legal states at this time, but do so in fact out of consideration to the surrounding communities.

I am accused of being barbaric, well I could not find the meaning of barbaric, however I did find barbarian which is an uncivilized person, or savage. Well I live in a house, have electricity, and have an education etc. so there for I take offense to this as any other person would with just cause. And at no time as a person do I commit a barbaric act.
After all people it’s the gamecocks fighting, not me!

I am accused of exploiting these fowl, is boxing, football, racing, etc. any different, for all these are also doing daring deeds, taking advantage of the unique abilities at hand.

I am accused of training these game cocks (how to fight). This is a total lie .we do train these fowl by this definition. (Trained) to exercise body or mind to achieve high standards of efficiency, one who is training, no different than a boxer, we get there body in the best physical shape possible to compete.

The unanimous and logical decision was made by the experts on gamecocks to substitute a more sufficient heel to replace the natural one to in fact reduce the amount of time bouts will last.

This is the best I can do to help those of you who know nothing about the sport of cockfighting, and yet have your own opinions made up. For there is no simple logic behind these laws that have been put in place or are in the making pertaining to cockfighting.

It truly saddens me that the public can accept direct acts involving blaspheme to the Holy Bible .Are giving other cultures the red carpet treatment as soon as they arrive here in the U.S.A in fact are allowing our own culture and history to be thrown to the curb to be stomped on. And yet they cannot except me for simply owning and letting the gamecock do what’s natural to him and that is to fight like it or not.

Posted by Ray Burgess on 1 February 02007 @ 11pm

As a person I am attacked by idealist for allowing these cocks to be themselves

I don’t care how many chickens you stick together in how small of a space for how long: at no time will they fashion tiny knives and attach them to their own feet, and use them to slash one another to death. It’s just not going to happen.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 2 February 02007 @ 12am

As a person I am attacked by idealist for allowing these cocks to be themselves

I don’t care how many chicken you stick together in how small of a space for how long;
At no time will they fashion tiny knives and attach them to their own feet, and use them to slash one another to death.
It’s just not going to happen.

You see Waldo, I do not use this type of heel called the knife, so there for you have once again past misjudgment on me as a person, for these laws will also apply to me.

This can and will go on and on besides Waldo how (logically) can cockfighting affect you as a person when you do not participate in this sport.

Thanks for your time and input Ray

Posted by Ray Burgess on 2 February 02007 @ 10am

This can and will go on and on besides Waldo how (logically) can cockfighting affect you as a person when you do not participate in this sport.

So you’re OK with abortions at, say, 8 months for lifestyle reasons?

After all, how can abortion affect you as a person when you do not participate in it?

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 2 February 02007 @ 10am

Note to the public we have officaly left Ciockfighting and wenbt to aborhtion!!!!

This can and will go on and on besides Waldo how (logically) can cockfighting affect you as a person when you do not participate in this sport.

So you’re OK with abortions at, say, 8 months for lifestyle reasons?

After all, how can abortion affect you as a person when you do not participate in it?

Waldo,
In the USA people have the right of free choice, If this person makes this choice then indeed he will be the one answereing to God for his sins.

No this will not affect me as a person because I will not be passing judgement or be the one judged for this crime.

Thank You

Posted by Ray Burgess on 2 February 02007 @ 11am

You’re not following my advice. See point 6, under which your current logic (“I can do anything I want and it’s none of your business”) certainly falls.

If you follow my advice, you win. If you don’t, you lose. You’re losing.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 2 February 02007 @ 11am

Unfourtunately piont six has nothing to do with what you as a person will be held responsible for in front of God. You just brought up Abortion and whether it is right or wrong. What is the difference between any other law in this country. Our rights as human beings are being taken away whether you and I see eye to eye on them or not.

So if all our rights are taken away who is Justified? And who is the Jury?

Posted by Paula on 2 February 02007 @ 12pm

The claim that Thomas Jefferson was a cockfighter is just malarkey! Cockfighters have been challenged to offer up a shred of proof and they can’t. They also claim that Lincoln became “Honest Abe” judging cockfights, but can’t find any proof. They claim Washington was a cockfighter, but the historical record only shows he went to a cockfight when he was 19 and he left early. That kind of evidence would make me a cockfighter! I’ve even heard them claim Helen Keller was a cockfighter. I suppose it’s true she didn’t see anything wrong with it. LOL. Their only friend in the White House was Jackson and he was well recognized as a scoundrel. Still, he gave it up 12 years before he became President. That, of course, doesn’t stop the dimwitted from claiming he probably held cockfights on the White House lawn.

Posted by Jamie on 2 February 02007 @ 12pm

Unfourtunately piont six has nothing to do with what you as a person will be held responsible for in front of God. You just brought up Abortion and whether it is right or wrong. What is the difference between any other law in this country. Our rights as human beings are being taken away whether you and I see eye to eye on them or not.

I have absolutely no idea of what you’re talking about, and I’m not certain that you do, either.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 2 February 02007 @ 12pm

Waldo,
Dear Sir,
I understand the thinking behind cruelty to animals, and I don’t think everyone understands the difference between Choice and Freedom of Choice or the fact that Huamns have or posses this choice.

I guess my question is has thier been any scientific study or proof that an animal if given a choice would choose based on feeling or thought? And is their any distinction of different kinds of animals and thier thought process?

A Cockfighters Wife

Posted by A Cockfighter's Wife on 2 February 02007 @ 4pm

There has been enormous amounts of research done into this field. And, if nothing else, what’s come out of such studies is that “animals” is not a meaningful grouping. Dolphins, for instance, hardly compare to (say) chickens which, in turn, hardly compare to sea sponges. I’m afraid that the only research that I’ve paid attention to is on the dolphin end of the spectrum.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 2 February 02007 @ 5pm

To add to Waldo’s advice for proponents of cockfighting…

Why don’t you each kick in $100 or so and hire a lobbyist? Then, follow the lobbyist’s paid, professional advice. Let the lobbyist draft a dozen or so talking points for you to use in letter-writing and blog communications. If you feel compelled to deviate from those talking points, ask your lobbyist to check them first for grammar, spelling and logic.

If you’re not from Virginia, but feel that you have an interest in our laws, kick in your $100, but stay out of the public argument. Nobody cares. Our state, our laws. Virginia legislators are concerned about what their constituents think. It’s not their job to worry about the interests of out-of-staters.

We all have different talents and, if yours is raising chickens, good for you. Take pride in it. That doesn’t mean that you’re expected to be talented wordsmiths or effective communicators. So hire somebody that has those talents to advise and represent you.

Or, don’t. Any you’ll continue to be, at best, ignored and at worst, ridiculed.

Posted by Harry Landers on 3 February 02007 @ 11am

—————————————————Waldo does this imply your point 6. —————————–

The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicates a message.

Im no lawyer but look up the definition of express. I have a 1975 websters dictionary its amazing how things change and some do not.

thank you

Posted by Ray Burgess on 4 February 02007 @ 12am

Ray, if you’re attempting to convince me that cockfighting qualifies as freedom of expression, I’m afraid it’s just not going to work. As I wrote: “You’re convincing nobody, and only making yourselves look silly.”

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 4 February 02007 @ 12am

Ray, if your trying to convince me that cockfighting qualifies as freedom of expression,I’m afraid its not going to to work.

My point exactly,
I should’nt have to try to change your oppinion on cockfighting for that is your right,you think its wrong,and I do not. I own gamefowl, you do not. I do not expect you to come to a cockfight, but yet you expect me to stop cockfighting just for the sake of your oppinion or feelings,that its wrong.

Posted by Ray Burgess on 4 February 02007 @ 8pm

No presidents?? How about a President along with foreign dignataries from England, France, and Italy. In 1919 a rooster auction was held to raise money to build a bridge across the Tombigbee River in Demopolis, Al. Among people donating to the auction was of course Helen Keller along with President Woodrow Wilson, Prime Minister Lloyd George of England, Premier Clemenceau of France and Premier Orlando of Italy. http://www.demopolis.ws/DHS/19_rooster-bridge_1.htm those are not “cooking goods” shown in the photo. Rooster Bridge was got its name from the cockpit at the foot of the original bridge long before Governor Patterson officially named the bridge in 1959.

Posted by Dee on 4 February 02007 @ 9pm

I see that some are having a little fun with my friends diction and choices of similies. I suppose that if you MUST have something to feel superior about, go for it, but I’m quite satisfied with myself.

Why do the radical animal rightists like PETA and the Humane Society of the US qualify for the terrorist label? They have been documented manufacturing evidence for bogus search warrants, have pulled firearms on homeowners (though they have no REAL legal right to)and have seized and destroyed animals before the owners were even charged or indicted for a crime. Sound like terror tactics to you?

Cockfighting is actually the oldest “sport” in the world dating back to the Macedonians and possibly earlier. The earliest known depictions of it are 10, 000 years old. It has persisted to this day because of the admiration that dedicated breeders of these ancient fowl have for their courage and tenacity.

Forget about the gambling aspect, that has little to do with the actual breeders and practioners, but like any sport it has it’s share of gamblers that come strictly for the wagering.

More later…I’ve got birds to feed!

Posted by Bill Hughett on 5 February 02007 @ 5pm

Dictating others rights because you hold the so-called “moral high ground” is flat wrong and any right thinking human being that loves freedom knows that. That attitude is strictly subjective to YOUR viewpoint and should not be allowed to infringe upon my rights if I’m harming no other person or their property.
Tyranny of the majority was one of the main threats that the founding fathers foresaw for their burgeoning little country and tried to build in enough safeguards in the Constitution to prevent it. Alas, as you can see they failed to foresee well-heeled special interest groups lobbying corrupt congressmen to legislate anything they disagree with out of existence.
A few words about the Humane Society of the US..they are frauds of the worst stripe! They operate no animal shelters nor does one penny of those “doggy dollars” they collect from unsuspecting donors go to animal welfare. They are a hardcore animal RIGHTS group that is pledged to eliminate hunting, fishing, rodeo, basically any animal use of any sort. They originally were an animal welfare group that was infiltrated by PETA and subverted slowly into the most powerful animal rights organization in the world. Wayne Pacelle, now the CEO of the HSUS, was Ingrid Newkirk’s (CEO of PETA)protege before he went to the HSUS and believe me they are one and the same these days. Both groups have been linked to the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Environmental Liberation Front (ELF),both of which lead the FBI’s list of dangerous homegrown terrorist organizations.
More later…

Posted by Bill Hughett on 5 February 02007 @ 10pm

Read through all of this blog and it’s quite evident where you stand on this issue Waldo. I particularly enjoyed your minor mot juste leading in to this.
The troops are fighting in Iraq for an IDEAL Waldo (at least the soldiers think they are). That ideal is individual liberty and freedom to conduct your life and affairs as you see fit. Hard concept to grasp? That ideal encompasses ANY freedom being taken from ANY minority.
And yes, Washington, Jefferson and Andrew Jackson owned gamefowl and conducted cockfights on the White House lawn after church on Sundays. Historical fact.
More later…

Posted by Bill Hughett on 5 February 02007 @ 11pm