posted July 04, 2005 06:02 PM              

— Stephen C. Foster (1826-1864)
Old Dog Tray

NORTON (Zimbabwe) — In a land marred by unbridled violence and racial slaughters, the only semblance of humanity comes from a dog.

Yesterday, a 51-year-old farmer named Terry Ford became the 10th person to be hunted and killed in Zimbabwe's ongoing land seizures encouraged by recently re-elected President Robert Mugabe. Beside the farmer's mutilated corpse, authorities found the man's devoted dog who "would not leave the farmer's body."

Little Squeak huddles close to the body of his murdered friend. "The dog would not leave the farmer's body," said SPCA director Meryl Harrison. (Photo: Reuters)


The dog, a 14-year-old Jack Russell Terrier named "Squeak", was retrieved from Mr. Ford's farmland west of Harare along with the man's two Border Collies and taken to the Zimbabwe SPCA led by Meryl Harrison.
Ms. Harrison described the devoted dog: "Squeak never left Terry's side. He went everywhere with his owner. He was with Terry Ford when the farmer tried to leave his farm in a vehicle."

The Sun newspaper reports: "[Mr. Ford] tried to escape attackers by driving through a fence after a car blocked his main gate. But he was dragged from the car, tied to a tree and blasted through the head."

The killers are widely believed to be part of President Mugabe's so-called "war veterans" of the 1970s Liberation War acting on the president's vow to speed up the land seizures of white-owned farms. Mugabe asserted this vow immediately following his re-election last week.

News Sources

Battle to save thousands of animals
(Mar. 19, 2002 News24)

Dog stays by shot farmer
(Mar. 19, 2002 The Sun)

Auklander's tragic link to Zimbabwe farm death
(Mar. 23, 2002 New Zealand Herald)

Ms. Kuch said that the faithful terrier is "a symbol of the devotion and loyalty of dogs, even in death. It was a remarkable demonstration of the bond and companionship between man and animals."

According to reports, it took the slain man's mourning relatives an hour yesterday to coax the little dog into their car so they could take him away. Squeak is currently being cared for by one of the farmer's close friends, says the SPCA.

"He was crying when the body was found and he is still crying now. In fact, he hasn't stopped," said one friend of the family.

It can never be put into words—even if it were known—what horror must have gone through Terry Ford's mind in those last violent moments on Earth. We can only hope that, rather than leaving this world with such bitter laments, the dead man may have instead awakened to a sort of ironic tranquility, as if a tiny, familiar face were saying to him: I will be right here.

He asks no Angel’s wing, no Seraph’s fire;
But thinks, admitted to that equal sky,
His faithful dog shall bear him company.

— Alexander Pope (1688–1744)
An Essay on Man

§§§

Headlines
PrevNext

Discuss this article

http://www.dogsinthenews.com/issues/0203/articles/020319a.htm

posted July 05, 2005 08:56 PM            

I will admit that humans are more evolved than animals and plants, but TINK sums up what Herriot was trying to say- animals being better off, not better than.

Yet, we see animals protecting, loving, aiding and even forgiving humans that would otherwise kill them should they act out of line or worse, out of plain fear. What species, based on that is superior? I have yet to witness a dog have a bad day and beat his / her owner.

I have yet to see a cat angry at it's feline companion kill the human owner to prove their superiority. I CAN guarantee I have seen humans do that to animals to hurt, instill fear or because of outright hate.

You seem like the type, based on your posts here, that looks at animals as nothing more than property- to do with as you please. Yes, they can be food (for those of us that eat meat) but even then, it should be done out of respect for what they are giving up.

posted July 06, 2005 11:45 PM            

You write

quote:

---

For someone that considers themselves to be of the superior species, and arrogant human could never relent to feeling less than an animal or a plant.

---

And then directly afterwards:

quote:

---

I will admit that humans are more evolved than animals and plants

---

So you just reaffirmed what I just said, but because you don't like me you feel like trying to make yourself look morally superior. I don't agree with that.

quote:

---

Yet, we see animals protecting, loving, aiding and even forgiving humans that would otherwise kill them should they act out of line or worse, out of plain fear. What species, based on that is superior? I have yet to witness a dog have a bad day and beat his/her owner.

---

I don't even see this as an argument. Yes, there are heroic animals, there are also vicious animals. There are both in humans as well.

quote:

---

I have yet to see a cat angry at it's feline companion kill the human owner to prove their superiority. I CAN guarantee I have seen humans do that to animals to hurt, instill fear or because of outright hate.

---

And people who do these things are that way with humans as well. Dennis Franz is in a commercial asking people to report animal abuse, because people who abuse animals often have those aggressive tendencies towards humans as well. This implication that I'm saying that animals are to be abused is terrible.

quote:

---

You seem like the type, based on your posts here, that looks at animals as nothing more than property- to do with as you please. Yes, they can be food (for those of us that eat meat) but even then, it should be done out of respect for what they are giving up.

---

This is a ridiculous assumption based on what I've said. I have a great rapport with animals, and they often seem drawn to me. This is part of the reason I think you're just arguing to argue.

What if the quote had been changed to:

quote:

---

If having a soul means being able to feel love and loyalty and gratitude, then the KKK are better off than a lot of the rest of society.

---

I guess people defend animals because we all like them, but it doesn't make my point less valid. If we're more evolved, and more capable of great things why should we be quick to accept that animals are better off?

posted July 07, 2005 12:17 AM            

Pid may be arguing "just to argue" but arn`t you as well . Granny called that the pot calling the kettle black.

Herriot said what he said, any inference can equate as an opinion. I believe that is the rightful option of all of us , yes?

My inference? Animals are in perfect submission to God. Are humans?

Love,

posted July 07, 2005 02:16 AM            

quote:

---

Herriot said what he said, any inference can equate as an opinion. I believe that is the rightful option of all of us , yes?

---

Indeed. Even the original assertion is one of opinion, and taken on it's own it's a little disturbing, at least to me. It sounds as if James is trying to say that people ought to be more loving, loyal and full of gratitude that we might be as good as the animals.

quote:

---

My inference? Animals are in perfect submission to God. Are humans?

---

Aren't we? If everything is fate and the will of God, then we are. Destiny in relation to God is a whole debate in itself, but if one believes that God has a plan then it only follows that every action on Earth would accomodate that plan whether the action is initiated by humans or animals.

posted July 07, 2005 10:55 AM              

Glancing over at my cat, I notice he doesn't seem to have these connumdrums. He is in a more simple state. Granted, my agony has a purpose in the plan. Human evolution requires it. However, while my cat is in submission to God, he doesn't know he is in submission to God. It seems he declined the apple. Someday I hope to submit consciously. Therein lies my superiority.

posted July 07, 2005 02:38 PM            

Tink, your clarity on human nature and Harriot is inspiring.

Love,

posted July 07, 2005 06:18 PM            

Truth be told, I like almost all that you have to say outside of Global Unity (whenever I disagree with someone here, I almost never use that against them outside of here...it is only politics and opinions).

I wasn't trying to put you down... BUT... I have been told that my posts can come across as very heavy handed. I blame that on my Mercury in Capricorn

My Aries moon may be part of the equation, but I would also think my penchant for arguing also comes from that Sag Sun / Venus.

For the record, I usually get along famously with Cappies (especially my favorite one in the world - my Dad).

~Pidaua

posted July 07, 2005 08:01 PM            

SAgs are pretty important in my life. My connection with religion and spirituality is often through Sags. With religion it's generally a pretty complementary relationship. Sags bring me back to church and family (both of which I love even if I don't participate), and I aid Sags in being realistic with both their beliefs as well as their multitude of goals. I've got two Sags I could probably trust with absolutely anything.

Regarding me posting as an authority on everything, my instincts and experience serve me pretty well. I can't say anything more powerful about my own cognitive ability than that people aren't often proving me wrong, or trying to make a fool of me. Most debates serve to show me that my initial reaction was the correct reaction. Even when people disagree with me, they generally realize that I'm not totally off-base, and they can sense that there are truthful aspects of what I'm saying (often I'm too brief to point out everything that lead me to my opinion). If I was finding out on a regular basis just how wrong I am about everything, my confidence in arguing/debating would be diminished. Even when I can be perceived as wrong I'm generally as right as the person I'm debating, because the facts are just as strong to back up my point.

Then again, maybe it's an ego-thing. Perhaps my acting authoritative is a means of self-promotion (very Capricornian), and self-protection. The thing is, with Global Unity, I know it's a battle. This is the most heated region of LL. So perhaps I come here with that mindset that I need to be tough. You've seen me in the other places. It is different.

posted July 07, 2005 08:11 PM            

I read about James Herriot earlier, when I posted to you. I don't doubt that he is respected. That's why I wonder what the context is for your quote, because on it's own it doesn't affirm humans too much.

Here's a nicer quote from him:

quote:

---

"I hope to make people realize how totally helpless animals are, how dependent on us, trusting as a child must that we will be kind and take care of their needs... [They] are an obligation put on us, a responsibility we have no right to neglect, nor to violate by cruelty."

---

While validating humans quite a bit more, I can still see that cynical analysis of humans popping through speaking of neglect and cruelty. (I'm not denying that these qualities exist in humans.) I'm sure he's not speaking of everyone. It seems to me that in your quote he compares animals with humans as a way to try to motivate humans to act better.

Teaselbaby,

posted July 07, 2005 08:20 PM              

quote:

---

Regarding me posting as an authority on everything, my instincts and experience serve me pretty well. I can't say anything more powerful about my own cognitive ability than that people aren't often proving me wrong, or trying to make a fool of me. Most debates serve to show me that my initial reaction was the correct reaction. Even when people disagree with me, they generally realize that I'm not totally off-base, and they can sense that there are truthful aspects of what I'm saying (often I'm too brief to point out everything that lead me to my opinion). If I was finding out on a regular basis just how wrong I am about everything, my confidence in arguing/debating would be diminished. Even when I can be perceived as wrong I'm generally as right as the person I'm debating, because the facts are just as strong to back up my point.

---

wow

posted July 07, 2005 08:30 PM            

In real life, I have found my conversations can take on the same authorative tone. I do my research and I know what I am talking about and I state my opinion. There are some that believe I am stating fact (Mr. Taurus is one of those people) when I am really conveying the facts as I have assimilated them into my own opinion. LOL... communication is such a silly thing sometimes.

I have a Virgo rising conjuncting Pluto - so again, I have an intensity that comes from a strong Plutonian aspect - which just so happens to Square my Sun / IC (4th house) and Venus (in the 3rd house).

What usually aids me in conversations is that I have a bit of a smile when I am saying things, that typical Sag twinkle in my eyes..combined with Venus in the house of communication.

I would also have to say, being raised by a VERY STRONG Cappy dad has influenced my manner of speech and arguments. He taught me well and is skilled in interrogation and debate (he is retired law enforcement). He helped temper my head being in the clouds to me thinking "I can have my head in the clouds when I get the job done" yet my Sag nature turns that around into "My head can be in the clouds as long as I am ALSO doing my job LOL".

My personality is very similar to my father's, which can throw people off. But I wonder if that is more my Virgo / Pluto rising aspect then my Saggie nature pops out when I am more comfortable or when I know I can play?

I also have a singleton- Uranus in the 1st house in Libra- my only air sign. It forms a nice opposition to my Aries moon and Merc in Cappy. LOL..

We had that same thread (about most powerful sign) in March.. here is the thread:
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/004822.html

posted July 07, 2005 08:36 PM              

pid ~ for my part, while it took a bit to get used to, your attitude doesn't bother me. I keep that "saggie twinkle in the eye" in mind while I read your posts and then it all makes sense.

posted July 07, 2005 08:52 PM            

Well, I was going to elaborate after you made that comment. Should I? Mostly what I'm getting at, is the same thing Pid just got at --away from here we're perceived much differently. People don't take either of us quite as seriously as they do here. In normal life I'll state my opinion quite frequently, and the truth is that the way people respond often isn't negative. Occasionally I have to qualify what I say, but it's seldom a big deal, and no one's ever walking away from me thinking that I'm a nut job. I also never catch people talking about stuff I said behind my back, which people often do when someone is totally dilluted.

posted July 07, 2005 09:09 PM              

Whether or not a conversation is superificial is a matter of opinion, no? At any rate, if the subject matter seems deep and profound to you (and you prefer that sort of thing), that's all that matters.

Forgive my "wow". Possibly it was a bit impertinent. But I must say I was struck by your ... shall we say ... confidence.

posted July 07, 2005 09:16 PM              

Ahhh the irony.

posted July 07, 2005 11:04 PM            

I believe you are asking what the context of his quote is, yes? And perhaps why it is my favorite?

Angels and animals (plants too as you mentioned) are in perfect submission to God. They don`t search for him or try to find themselves thru the process; they don`t chase religions or fret about guilt,sin or the state of the ozone layer. They are perfctly submitted to the natural order of the cosmos and Know who`s in charge.

My preference for that quote, above the wonderful hundreds of others, is simply, I aspire to that state of submission.

We struggle and struggle for lifes meaning while the Angles and animals Know and that is the BETTER deal to me

Blessings,

posted July 07, 2005 11:31 PM              

quote:

---

I keep that "saggie twinkle in the eye"

---

ROFL

P.S - You're very welcome proxieme