Right Treatment
Sam Aurelius Milam III
A right is something that is within your ability, for which you don't need permission, and that will be generally or customarily approved or, at least, tolerated.  Different rights have different effects and accomplish different things.  A right of ownership means that a man who owns a thing can possess the thing, control it, use it, abuse it, dispose of it, damage it, destroy it, and so forth, as the case might be, without interference.  As with any right, when the government undertakes to regulate a right of ownership, then that right of ownership ceases to exist.  It becomes, instead, a privilege of custody.
Reformers with agendas always believe that any obstacle must be removed for the sake of their agendas.  A right is often such an obstacle.  To any group of reformers, its own agenda is always more important than any such right that might interfere with the agenda.  The reformers' best weapon in disposing of such a right is to present the agenda as a worthy cause with which most people will be loathe to disagree lest they be subjected to abuse and defamation by the reformers.  In general, reformers have been very successful at imposing agendas upon people who didn't agree with those agendas, at the expense of rights previously held by those people.
The animals' rights advocates are a good example of such a group of reformers.  People who advocate animals' rights don't seem to know much about either rights or ownership, or to care about such things.  To them, nothing is as important as the alleged rights of animals to whatever kind of treatment the reformers regard as de rigueur.  It's troublesome to such reformers that, if a man has a right of ownership of an animal, then he can possess the animal, control it, use it, abuse it, dispose of it, injure it, neglect it, or destroy it, without interference.  Therefore, a right of ownership of animals is intolerable to the animals' rights advocates.
Accordingly, the animals' rights advocates have long lamented the real or imagined plight of the animals, using sympathy as a weapon against the right of ownership.  They've used government force to impose their beliefs onto other people who might not agree with them, dictating by force how a man is permitted to treat his animals.  One result has been to convert a man's right of ownership of animals into a privilege of custody of the animals.  A worse result has been to transfer the right of ownership from the people to the government.  People who are in possession of animals must treat them as instructed by the authorities, who are the actual owners.  People are permitted to keep animals only for so long as they comply with the requirements established by the owners.  Any violation of any such requirement will cause the authorities to seize the animals.  Thus, the person who possesses an animal doesn't own it.  He's permitted to keep it in his possession at the pleasure of the authorities.  The government's ownership of the animals is further demonstrated by the fact that only the government can possess an animal, control it, use it, abuse it, dispose of it, injure it, neglect it, or destroy it, without interference.
I sympathize with abused or mistreated animals.  Nevertheless, I believe that a man's (erstwhile) right of ownership of an animal is more important than an animal's (alleged) right to a certain kind of treatment.  If some group of animals' rights advocates believes that a man is mistreating his animals, then they can ask him to treat the animals better.  If he refuses to do so, then they can offer to buy the animals from him.  If he refuses to sell, then they don't have any remaining legitimate option except to mind their own business, which doesn't include dictating to a man how he's permitted to treat his animals.  The next time that you see one of those animals' rights commercials with a woebegone pooch peering tearfully from behind the bars of the doggy gulag down at the pound, awaiting execution at the hands of the authorities, its actual owners, don't weep just for the dog.  Weep also for the people who no longer have a right to own it.

Curiosity
Original Source Unknown.  Forwarded by Marilyn, of Bingham County, Idaho.
I was walking past the mental hospital the other day and all of the patients were shouting, "13!  13!  13!"  The fence was too high for me to see over it but I looked through a little gap to see what was going on.  Some idiot poked me in the face with a stick.  Then, all of the patients began shouting, "14!  14!  14!"

Stray Thoughts
Sam Aurelius Milam III
Good Job — A perfect post hole is one where you didn't hit your foot with the post hole digger while you were digging the hole.
Madly In Love — Insofar as they affect human behavior, there doesn't seem to be much difference between love and insanity.
Loose Lips — If more than one person knows a thing then the thing isn't really a secret.

And Then The Fight Started
Original Source Unknown.  Forwarded by Sir Donald the Elusive.
A woman was standing nude, looking at herself in the bedroom mirror.  She was not happy with what she saw.  She said to her husband, "I feel horrible.  I look old, fat, and ugly.  I really need for you to pay me a compliment."
The husband replied, "Your eyesight's darn near perfect."

Geometry Jokes
Sam Aurelius Milam III

Q:

What do you call it when two geometry teachers get into an automobile accident?

A:

A rectangle.

Q:

What do geometry teachers do when they get mad at each other?

A:

They square off.

Q:

What do buzzards do when they see a sick or wounded geometry teacher?

A:

They circle.

Q:

What do geometry teachers use to catch stray animals?

A:

Trapezoids.

Q:

How do geometry teachers stay in touch?

A:

They send parallelograms.

Q:

How do witches stay in touch?

A:

They send pentagrams.

Where's the anger?