Please Don’t Feed the Animals
Oct 29th, 2009 | By Anthony De Maio | Category: Featured, Morning Whiskey
I went to a park the other day where a ranger was “on patrol”. I saw a sign that said, “Please do not feed the animals.” I thought it strange. Why, I wondered, should we allow the animals to go hungry when we have a tremendous abundance of food with much of it going to waste. I wondered why we should NOT feed the animals.
I queried the ranger, “Why NOT feed the animals. It looks like they could use a bit of food.”
The ranger replied, “Well, there are MANY reasons. One reason is that we have many visitors here each year. If all the visitors routinely fed the animals, they would grow quite fat. Also, they would not have to forage for their food, and would become dependent upon the visitors for food. They would ‘forget’ how to forage for themselves and lose their independence. Not only that, but they learn to eschew their natural food and prefer ‘human’ food—which is not healthy for them. Also, since they don’t forage, they don’t get exercise, they develop health problems, and die early because of the improper diet and lack of exercise.
“If they become accustomed to being fed by the visitors, they will EXPECT to be fed by the visitors. As such, any visitor that did NOT give them food would disappoint them. A disappointed animal is a dangerous animal. The animal might well attack to secure the food to which he expects and believes he is ‘entitled’. This is not particularly hazardous if the animal is a squirrel—a bear is another story. Raccoons “vandalizing” garbage cans are quite common.
“If visitors were allowed to give out food, animals from all over would migrate here. The area would be overrun with various animals—which would lead to territorial fights among the animals. As more and more animals migrated and the supply of food remained constant, the animals would become very aggressive in their demands for food.
“Feeding such animals is fine if they are in some form of ‘captivity’, where the amount and type of food can be controlled, but it is not a good idea to feed such animals in the wild when they are free—particularly when the type and amount of food cannot be controlled.
“If an animal is injured in some manner, we often take them in and care for them and feed them—but it is strictly a temporary measure. We cut them off from dependency as soon as possible and place them back in their natural habitat.”
I asked the ranger if it wasn’t something like a “co-alcoholic”—a person that lives with and/or supports an alcoholic in his behavior. The support may be financial or moral or other, but it allows the alcoholic to continue to lead a destructive life. I asked, “When we feed the animals, is it that we do it to ‘feel good’ about OURSELVES that we are doing ‘something charitable’ by feeding the animals, when in fact we are doing great damage to their lives?”
The ranger agreed with me and said that in his opinion I was correct.
I left the park thinking about what I had seen and my conversation with the ranger. As I drove out the park entrance, a “street person” was there with a “please help” sign. I reached for my wallet for some money to assist this person in need when I recalled my conversation with the ranger. In a moment of insight, it was clear to me that I should NOT give this person money. In doing so, I was simply allowing this person to lead the kind of life he was leading—I was being a “co-alcoholic”. I was “Feeding the animals”.
I did not give the person money. Instead, I thought about our whole welfare system and the way is works (or does NOT work). It became clear to me that we are encouraging generation after generation to become dependent. They are essentially a slave to the welfare system. In some sense, they are in captivity.
I thought about the “families” of three and four generations of welfare recipients—many obese—living in poverty; people that have been “trained” to ask for “handouts” and have never learned how to “forage” for themselves.
I thought about the people in New Orleans during hurricane Katrina that had no ability or desire to fend for themselves and simply waited for the government to provide a handout and save them.
I thought about the “migration” of welfare recipients to various states where the welfare benefits are most generous—in particular to major cities in certain states. (Where the various politicians court their votes.)
I thought about how, as more and more people are receiving “subsidies”, each segment becomes more and more aggressive in their “claim” to “their share”.
I thought about the “demands” of the welfare recipients, the riots, the “welfare rights” organizations, the demonstrations, the court cases, and thought, “The similarities are so great they cannot be ignored.”
I thought about the “War on Poverty”, and wondered about the “exit strategy”, or the “definition of victory”.
I thought about all these things and thought, “What have we done through a mistaken notion of benevolence? In a sense, we have not only accepted inappropriate behavior and dependency, but we have encouraged and solicited it for our own purposes. We have been ‘co-alcoholics’ to these people. We have not helped them; we have domesticated them.”
May God forgive us.
Regards,
Anthony De Maio
October 29, 2009
Sir, that was beyond insightful, but scary.
I seriously doubt a park ranger used the word “eschew”.
But nice to see someone show we aren’t that different from the rest of the animal world.
Illogical and callous article. Because they are captive, the animals still have to be fed by their handlers so your analogy falls apart. For a number of reasons, the welfare recipients you cite often still have to be fed by their “handlers” because they are unable fully to look after themselves because of circumstances such as — oh, I don’t know — the legacy of that generations-long period of SLAVERY (most of the people you describe happen to be black, of course, but you didn’t dare be explicit about that, did you?). Yeah, efforts to improve the situation need to continue but, grab a brain, elitist scum. Some people actually do need help. Fat people too. Jerk.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Agora Financial, Whiskey Gunpowder. Whiskey Gunpowder said: Please Don’t Feed the Animals: I went to a park the other day where a ranger was “on patrol”. I saw a sign that.. http://bit.ly/2FeRSI [...]
Winston, I complete disagree with you. First let me address your slavery comment. Many, many, many of the people taking advantage of disability and food stamps and welfare are not black. In my part of connecticut, it is puerto ricans (who are american but like their flag better than the U.S.’s) who take the lions share. Lower income white and blacks take a bit too. Illegal Mexicans have to work for their booty. (plenty of them…you can tell them apart because they are the ones working)
I personally know at least 5 people on disability. Not a one of which is disabled. One is a contractor (under the table) on my properties. Another is a general handyman/mechanic. Another was a college student who had “anger issues”…..another is a 15 yr old who has “learning disabilities”….(the only learning disability is the failed school system….I’ve helped him with what passes for “homework”…his history teacher didn’t allow them to take the book home because they might lose it)
I know A LOT of people getting food stamps. They use other money for the coolest cellphone…to get their hair done, new flatscreens, etc…..Do they need a handout if they can afford the $450 cellphone? Really?
Anyone “unable to lookout for themselves” needs to get able.
Excellent presentation, Tony. BTW, there’s always a “Winston” jerk in the crowd. No matter how much you dumb-down a presentation, there will always be “Winstons” that refuse to accept facts. Keep up the excellent writing!
Cheers, Tex
Dear Elitist Scum (and dear friend, for those who do not realize I am jesting:)
1. Did you know that raccoons are the smallest member of the bear family?
2. We aren’t on third and fourth generation welfare, we are up over eighth. Those who support themselves run to “generations” of about twenty-five years. Those who are paid to reproduce because they can be relied upon to vote for Statists start bearing cash crops at fourteen and fifteen.
3. Forage? Don’t you think we should include muggings, robberies, and home break-ins as part of that? How about dealing drugs and prostitution, favored activities on the Welfare Plantation? Those are entrepreneurial activities, along with swapping food stamps for cash, alcohol, and drugs.
Utterly brilliant, as always, Tony.
Cynthia, dear, your own prejudice is showing, over and above calling Tony a liar, which is uncivil. The Ranger almost certainly had a college degree, and could easily have an average vocabulary.
Winston, where I come from we call what you speak of “the Damnyankee Syndrome.” That’s sitting around whining because the pigs got in the neglected garden because Sherman came through and knocked down the garden gate, and no one has bothered to repair it in the ensuing 155 years or so. Everything is someone else’s fault. As a dreary matter of fact, Blacks are on welfare in vastly disproportionate numbers to their percentage of the population but they are NOT the single biggest group. There are a great many “illegal immigrants” (most of whom are brown) on the public dole, but the largest number is white. That doesn’t fit in with YOUR prejudices, does it? Thanks for signing your real name: “Jerk” covers it beautifully.
Linda Brady Traynham
I admit that I should have said “many” of the the people needing assistance were black, not “most”. That comment of mine was in response to the comment about Katrina victims, most of whom were black. (Note that was intended as just one example of an underprivileged group requiring assistance. I did not mean to imply that there are not significant numbers of white people on the dole. Clearly there are.)
Now, with that correction out of the way, let’s look at what we really have here:
Anthony De Maio wrote a piece in which he wondered why park animals should be allowed “to go hungry” when “we have a tremendous abundance of food with much of it going to waste”. The point he makes is that a bit of hunger is a good motivator and, conversely, serving things up on a platter makes animals lazy and hurts them longer term. I agree!
He then goes on to compare a homeless person with such animals and reasons that he should not help out the homeless person because it would simply result in the enabling of the lifestyle that homeless person is leading. We’ll just have to ignore the fact that the vast majority of homeless people have serious mental health and/or addiction problems, I suppose, and assume that homeless people are as able and healthy as the park animals. Who care if it’s just plain incorrect?
He then opines that the welfare system encourages generation after generation to “become dependent”. We’ll just have to ignore the fact that many of the wealthy and privileged in our society come from wealthy and privileged backgrounds and that the system encourages generation after generation to rig the game so that they can hang onto their gains no matter what, generation after generation. We certainly wouldn’t want certain persons’ status in society to be revealed as having been significantly shaped by factors having nothing to do with individual virtue. I guess the generations of the successful need to be seen to have “earned” their wealth and privilege through their individual virtues while the second, third or fourth generations of poor people are poor almost solely because of their own individual flaws. We wouldn’t want to be seen to have been brainwashed by the incessant, self-congratulatory “American Dream” propaganda that pours forth from the media and culture, without even a second thought of the reality on the ground.
Mr. De Maio then characterized hurricane Katrina victims as having had “no ability or desire to fend for themselves and simply waited for the government to provide a handout and save them”. Right. The next time Mr. De Maio is up to his ass in salt water during a natural disaster, we won’t bother handing him and his family any food. We’ll just pass out copies of crappy Horatio Alger novels and, if we’re feeling generous, leather-bound daytimers and motivational speeches.
Mr. De Maio then observes that welfare recipients seek out the most “generous” benefits, betraying that he clearly has no clue just how little these benefits are. Mind you, it’s presumably okay for the biggest welfare recipients in our society — the corporate welfare bums — to leave counties, cities or states in search of the lowest taxes, or even outright subsidies. I suppose that’s perfectly fine — while these same companies export jobs overseas by the hundreds of thousands. If you want to talk about “courting votes”, I would venture to bet that politicians spend a LOT more time courting corporations for electoral payouts than they do worrying about the state of the poorest in our society, many of whom never make it to the polls anyway.
Mr. De Maio then observes that peoples’ claims to subsidies become more aggressive with the increase of people receiving handouts. I assumed that he might talking about many of the biggest business corporations in America. But I was wrong because in the very next paragraph he decries “welfare recipients” and their champions. His exciting conclusion is that we have not only allowed ourselves to accept “inappropriate” behaviour and “dependency” but we have in fact encouraged it.
Excellent conclusion, and I couldn’t agree more. It’s time to wean the military-industrial complex and the banksters off the teat of the state. After all, the sums they command make the guy on the corner begging for quarters look like a chump.
I really liked the closer (”May God forgive us”.) No God, ergo no forgiveness necessary. Simple!
As for Mr. De Maio’s defenders, they either cite cheats (as if anyone is defending that, Sarah), offer nothing at all (Tex), or equate the receipt of welfare with young motherrs, muggers, thieves, drug-dealers, addicts and /or alcoholics (Linda). Hey, Linda, those muggers, robbers and thieves have NOTHING on the mostly white war profiteers and Wall Street fraudsters, who not only do much better overall in terms of their haul, but also seem to be able to avoid prosecution, unlike the poor and pignmentation-challenged who fill the jails. As for drug-dealing, ditto for the big pharma companies. As for prostitution, well, it’s a good thing that the “clean” market doesn’t engage in the promotion of sex through the mass media. That would be HORRIBLE. As for alcoholics and drug addicts, those losers should clearly know by now that these activities are permissible only to persons of means able to hide their socially-unacceptable personal issues within their — what were those called again? — oh yeah: HOMES.
You’re a gem, Linda. I hope you don’t ever face a desperate situation. You just might have to go with very little and in the process hear and/or read the ignorant prejudices people like you have against the poor. You probably call yourself a “Christian”, too. The ironic thing is that you rail against the “everything is someone else’s fault” yet show complete mastery at the blame game yourself.
If this is the state of public discourse, the U.S. is freaking doomed.
As I read the first few paragraphs – where Anthony was describing the aggressiveness of the animals as they become habituated to easy food – I thought, “Sounds like he’s talking about the government… hmmm, maybe we should stop feeding the government.”
Hi Winston:
Glad you liked the story.
First of all, a modicum of research will show that the percentages of AFDC recipients by race are: White 38.8%, Black 37.2%, Hispanic 17.8%, Asian 2.8%, Other 3.4%. As you can see, the majority of welfare recipients are not black. If you wish to use “slavery” as an excuse, please tell me how that relates to Whites and Hispanics being on welfare.
Yes, captive animals have to be fed–captive people (in prisons or asylums) also have to be fed. I guess that’s my point–we’ve domesticated the welfare recipients to where they cannot look after themselves. Please note that in the body of the parable I mention that animals that are hurt or injured are cared for, but “cut loose” as soon as possible. How does that invalidate my analogy?
Certainly, some people are unable to fully look after themselves. Some belong in asylums; others need a helping hand for awhile. The problem is, “Who makes the determination?” When our prex said to Joe the Plumber that he wanted to “Spread the wealth”, Joe’s “correct” answer was, “May I help? Let’s start with YOURS. “
When you have a vast welfare system which has eaten trillions of dollars with no progress in 50 years, one must wonder at the effectiveness of the program. When generations of a family are on welfare, perhaps it’s time to take a look at the program in terms of results.
In terms of “grabbing a brain”, that’s a good idea. I don’t know if you were around for the beginning of the “War on Poverty”, but it was quite an emotionally charged time. None of the originators apparently had time to “grab a brain” and think about it. You know, any sophomore in Psychology could have told Lyndon Johnson what would happen if you tell some 15 year old gal:
Spread your legs; it’s fun. If you have a kid, we’ll emancipate you, set you up in your own apartment, and support you. You can party all you want and sit around all day and watch T.V. You will not have to go to school, and no adult will tell you what to do. If you don’t have enough money, spread your legs again and we’ll give you more.
Sadly, some of us DID try to tell them what would happen. They didn’t listen. They are not listening now. Not only did they destroy the family, promote poverty, and destroy the cities, but they bankrupted Social Security. And you wish to continue this because “some” need help? If there is any callousness involved, it is on the part of the perpetrators and perpetuators of such a system. The county welfare system along with churches and other organizations worked quite well before the fed usurped the function.
Of the folks deemed “poverty stricken” in this country, 31% owned their own homes and 48% owned a car. Their average net worth was $30,000. Non-cash benefits such as rent subsidies, free medical care, and food stamps are not counted in determining “poverty”. Only in America could such people be termed “poverty stricken”.
Noel,
You misread my statement.
It’s when you have been feeding the animals and you QUIT feeding them they get hostile and aggressive.
We should not have started feeding the gubbermint. Hopefully it’s not too late to stop.
always,
tony
Winston, you will get a reply shortly although it may be a private one via Gary since without rich text there is no good way to differentiate between what you said and my ripostes–and someone similar to you complained that I was “screaming” when I used all caps, the only choice I have here on Morning Whiskey other than quotation marks.
If you wish to insult me more thoroughly than you already have I can offer you two choices: leave me a message on http://www.thetexasring.com, or write to me directly at ranchLT4@gmail.com.
Sweet, superior smile…I really cannot advise either option, my dear man, since in any contest short of arm wrestling or the 500-yard dash, and in particular when it comes to battles of wits, philosophy, and words, I am quite prepared to rip your head off verbally and logically and I will enjoy doing it. One of my basic rules is, “If you don’t want it, don’t ask for it.” You asked for it. I can ignore dimwits who have no more sense than to suppose that socialism works, but when it comes to denigrating me AND two of my friends I am willing to break a basic rule, which is, “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything.” You have forfeited any right to such consideration.
Winston…if you’ve got the guts, I’ve thrown the gauntlet down. Pick it up if you dare. You people have been robbing me and calling me names all my life and I am tired of it. I’ve had my share of very bad times and in every instance I solved the problem with intelligence, hard work, doing without things I wanted to pay for others that were important, and acting like a rational individual who did not need anyone else. I went and got a job when I needed one. I want nothing from your repressive, dictatorial Nanny State other than that it leave me alone.
If you really have the courage of your bizarre convictions, Winston, tell me what you did (if you are retired) or do to support yourself, where you live, and why, and all about what you do to make the world around you a better place other than wanting to rob me for your sloppy, mawkish, puerile, sentimental notions.
Linda Brady Traynham
Hello again, Winston.
First of all, let me state that due to the time lag in posting comments, I responded to your first comment above before I read the second. Apparently your comment was queued when I responded. Hence, any reply in my first response which appears to be responsive to your second comment (e.g. relative wealth of welfare recipients or black folk on welfare) is purely coincidental.
To save space, I did not copy your comment here. I have tried to respond to your points in the order in which they occurred in your comment.
You claim that “the vast majority” of homeless have serious mental health or addiction problems. I challenge this. Can you point me to the study that determined this? You might try this link: http://www.nationalhomeless.or.....iction.pdf where it states,
“Although obtaining an accurate, recent count is difficult, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2003) estimates, 38% of homeless people were dependent on alcohol and 26% abused other drugs.” I suspect some overlap in those populations. MANY people function quite well with a “dependence upon alcohol”. In any case, hardly the “vast majority”.
However, I could just as well ask, “Why is it MY responsibility to feed and care for folks in such a situation? Am I responsible in some fashion for their addiction?” And also, “From where do you draw the moral responsibility to make ME pay for those people?” May I conjure up some cause and demand YOU pay for it?
I believe you have a mistaken view of America. I suggest you look at some of the research concerning economic mobility. The “upper crust” of America is constantly changing.
Consider the link: http://www.phenomenologycenter.....ocracy.htm where they found:
“A classic social survey in 1978 found that 23% of adult men who had been born in the bottom fifth of the population (as ranked by social and economic status) had made it into the top fifth.”
Of course, there was much movement within the five groups–some up, some down. Clearly, there is only so much room in the “top fifth”. If 23% made it in, then obviously 23% were “thrown out” and went “down”.
Winston, I don’t think you understand me. True, I may someday be up to my ass in salt water due to a natural disaster, but it won’t be because I did not heed warnings to leave the area. I suggest you look at the response to Katrina by Texas and Mississippi and compare that response to New Orleans. Also, while I may need assistance, I can tell you straight that I will be doing what I can to help myself, not demonstrating, chanting, and demanding someone else help me.
At one time I dated a woman who had a Down’s Syndrome daughter. The daughter was on SSI, Section 8, food stamps, and several other programs, including free transportation and medical care. I calculated that it was costing the taxpayers about $30,000/yr to support this person. That was 15 years ago. Many of the folks on welfare have their own car, own house, and live better than the “working poor”. (see my other response)
In terms of “corporate welfare”, I have come across this term many times. It appears to mean different things to different people. To one person, it meant the government buying a product from a business. If you mean subsidies, I could not agree with you more. If you mean something else, could you give me a definition of “corporate welfare” with some examples? I suspect I will agree with you more than you expect.
The parable was written from a philosophical view. Whether the welfare folks get more undeserved income from the government than the corporations or vice versa is irrelevant. I think if you look at ALL the various welfare programs, you will find that the aggregate total is far more than that going to business. It must be true because over half the budget is targeted to social welfare programs. I reject the notion that the relative amount is pertinent and claim the parable applies to corporations as well. I was NOT for the GM bailout–or the other ones.
I’m not at all sure I agree that there is no God. However, for the sake of argument, let me stipulate it. If there is no God, from where do you draw the moral basis for taking care of these folks? To what authority do you appeal to take my money and give it to them?
I am unable to respond to your next paragraphs concerning my “defenders”. To tell you the truth, I couldn’t understand your writing. I don’t believe it is proper to justify inappropriate behavior by pointing to worse behavior. In passing, let me simply state that when someone commits a “white collar” crime, nobody is physically injured.
In terms of your last paragraphs and your statement:
“If this is the state of public discourse, the U.S. is freaking doomed”
I must agree with you.
Beautiful article and inherently true.
Habits are formed not from intentions, but from actions
My sister was fired from her job 5 years ago. She was denied unemployment, but she lived in rent subsidized housing so her rent was free. And the food stamps and medical for her kids (even though her ex had insurance-because she would have had to pay 50% of uncovered, the government decided to subsidize 100% of the bills).
She worked for a couple months at McDs and quit to have a government paid surgery.
FIVE years later she gets free rent ($725 a month), food stamps ($630 a month), $150 a month “utility subsidy” and an under the table baby sitting job PLUS a boyfriend who lives with her rent free and (was) working enough to pay for her luxuries.
The state is willing to pay for her education, she would just have to DO it. She won’t unless she is “paid.” Now she is complaining because she can’t get MORE in addition to the $17,000 a year she gets TAX free. Between daycare, taxes and expenses, I would have to have a job making over $40k a year to end up with $17k in my hand for food, health and roof.
Come to Detroit and see the girls with 5 babies, 5 baby’s daddies and living in the ghetto while wearing clothing I can’t afford to buy from garage sales.
As for the slavery guilt thing. Come on. My family came to America as indentured servants and worked our way up – with NO government hand outs. We don’t (nor have we) given a “leg up,” all we do is give handouts.
And yes, the US is doomed. Those in power figured out a long time ago how to vote in more bread and shinier circuses for the non-producing masses.