Not a sanctuary

I went out of town for 2 weeks this Christmas 2007-2008 and boarded the 2 cockatiels with a "parrot sanctuary" or “parrot rescue” near Peterborough, called Parrot Adopt Southern Ontario (PASO). When I went to pick the birds up, Bird C had passed away and Bird B was injured and hungry and reeking of cigarette smoke.

BACKGROUND: SUMMER 2005
The cockatiels had boarded at PASO before, a couple years ago, at their old location in Oshawa. I felt that the birds came back extremely well-socialized and unafraid of things, so I figured that the PASO people must be very good with parrot behaviour. (Previously, I had probably given the birds a too "sheltered" kind of life trying to protect them from danger.)

However, when I picked the birds up, they smelled faintly of smoke. I asked if anyone in the household smoked and was told no. It was explained to me that a smoker had recently visited the home, so that this was why the birds smelled like smoke.

The woman also told me the cockatiels had been very sweet, and that C would enjoy cuddling up to her under her chin, while she pet him with her finger. I couldn’t believe it – C HATED being touched with hands/fingers and only tolerated being preened by B. When I seemed incredulous, the woman tried to demonstrate, and sure enough, C squirmed and tried to get away from her hand.

These things didn’t add up, but all in all, I felt PASO was a good place to board the birds, since the birds seemed very calm and peaceful when I got them back. I felt that the PASO people were very kind, helpful, and dedicated to parrot care, and so I just dismissed the inconsistencies as misunderstandings.

THE BIRDS – DECEMBER 2007
Both cockatiels were aged around 23 years old and had been in our family for about 22 years. However, they had very different needs since Bird C was much less mobile. C has never been able to fly since we got him, because of a bad droopy wing. Because of that, he’s also had various physical health problems, and is not very strong or active, since he can’t fly. He has weak feet and the front toes are crossed on one foot. He is very cute with a round shaped body. His tail feathers are usually all broken, since he doesn’t pay attention to his tail when moving around.

Bird B is flighted and physically normal and healthy. B is devoted to Bird C, so B would walk along behind C instead of flying alone. B has a sharp hawk-like face with a protruding brow.

JANUARY 2008 – BEFORE PICK UP
When I got back to town in early January 2008, I called PASO to arrange picking the birds up the next day. I spoke to the man who said the next day should be fine, but that I should call again the next morning to confirm with the woman.

When I spoke to the woman the next morning, she informed me that one of my birds might be dead. She told me that my 2 cockatiels had arrived one day, and 2 other cockatiels had come in soon after for adoption, so she was not sure whether the dead cockatiel was one of mine. I asked her specifically if Bird C was okay, thinking that since he was so distinctive with the bad wing, etc., that C would be easy to tell apart. I thought that if I could ensure C was fine, then chances were that B would be fine, being the healthier one of the two. The woman just said she didn’t know and to come over.

My thoughts: Other than a desperate hope that both of mine were all right, the question running through my mind was: How could someone care properly for different birds without being able to tell them apart? The birds had very different needs, especially Bird C who was unable to fly, or climb, and was fairly weak and elderly. He probably wouldn’t be able to defend himself from an attack (from a healthy bird) and would need to be protected and cared for and adequately fed. Other than that, Bird C was especially distinctive in his looks, with his obviously bad wing, broken tail feathers, etc.

JANUARY 2008 – UPON PICK UP

BIRD B’s CONDITION
When we arrived there at PASO to pick up the birds, I found that it was Bird C who had passed. I won’t say any more about that, because I can’t know exactly what happened (I wasn’t there) and I can’t know whether it was simply Bird C’s time to pass on to heaven.

What did and still does concern me was what I noticed about Bird B:

- his right nostril was extremely swollen, so hugely that it looked like a big tumour
- the same nostril was clogged and clotted with blood

- skin was missing from the long front toe of his left foot & he was limping

- a chunk of feathers were missing from his crest, all coming back in as little pin feathers & the longest remaining crest feather had a crooked kink in it

- he reeked of cigarette smoke

I have posted photos so you can see the difference. The top photo along the left is B last summer, with a normal cere/nostrils. The second photo along the right is how he looked after he came back from PASO, with his swollen bloody cere.

There were no explanations initially offered for any of these conditions. I asked about the nostril, and the woman explained: B must have been attacked by a Quaker parrot that morning when the woman was talking to me on the phone. It seemed to be a theory, because the woman didn’t sound sure. She had seen the Quaker attack a bird, but apparently, she hadn’t known which bird got attacked, until I asked her how B’s nostril got hurt.

The smell of cigarette smoke stayed with Bird B for weeks. I brought him in to the shower, thinking that it would get the smell out, but after 3 showers in 3 days, he still reeked of smoke. After 6 showers, the smell had faded a bit for when he was dry, but when he got into the humid shower, he would smell like an ashtray again. It took about 3 weeks for the smell of nicotine to leave his feathers.

My thoughts: With different birds, I could understand not being able to keep watch all the time. So maybe it was understandable that B would get attacked by another bird. What was less understandable to me was why the woman wouldn’t KNOW that B had been attacked – why wouldn’t she care to check up on him, make sure he was all right after the attack? Besides that, I thought it was unacceptable that B reeked so deeply of smoke, which was clearly unhealthy and toxic for him. Even humans get lung cancer from secondhand smoke! I don’t know how much smoke he must have been living in, for him to smell so deeply of smoke, that it would take 3 weeks to clean out.

A BIG PROBLEM: NO FOOD LEFT

Additionally, there was no birdseed left in the birdcage. There was some parrot nut mix in the dish, but it was full of things that the birds never ate and wouldn’t recognize as food. It didn’t have any millet or small husky seeds that was their staple food for over 20 years, and pretty much the only thing C ever ate anymore. (C was a pickier eater than B.) I even saw Bird B picking at the food in the dish that day, looking hungry, but he soon gave up and left when he found nothing to eat there.

I had given PASO a large tub of birdseed for the birds, which should have been more than enough for 2 weeks. When I asked about the birdseed tub to bring back with me, the woman told me that all the birdseed had been used up, since other cockatiels and other parrots had got into their seed and eaten it up quickly. She did not explain why they had not acquired more seed so that my bird(s) would have something to eat.

OTHER THINGS – FROM MY PERSPECTIVE

It seemed to me that B looked rumpled and not very healthy. His feathers looked faded instead of lustrous. He just didn’t look very healthy to me. I was only away for 2 weeks.

The day I went to get B, the woman tried to pick B up a few times while we were talking about C’s passing. Not only did B not step up for her, but he flew away when she tried to pick him up, TWICE. This was very unusual for B, because he is not usually afraid of people, and if anything, he is more likely to bite than flee if he doesn’t want to step up. But besides that, in recent years, he has mellowed out and become much more calm and willing to step up easily all the time.

I didn’t think very carefully about all this at the time while I was there, I just gave the woman some donations and took B home – I hadn’t yet processed my grief over C’s passing. After a while, I wondered how well she could care for birds, who were not only afraid of her, but that she couldn’t tell apart. I think both birds had different special needs. C had obvious physical disabilities, but both birds were quite old, and despite B’s relative health, he wasn’t as strong as he was when he was 5 years old. He was clearly no match for whatever attacked him.

I have tried to keep this post as factual as possible so I can just report what happened and what I observed. I wanted to inform everyone about the conditions I found B in, which I think are unacceptable for anyone claiming to provide care for parrots. I don’t think I personally believe that the people at the PASO intended anything malicious, but perhaps, they are experiencing personal difficulties that prevent them from giving all the birds staying with them a smoke-free, healthy environment to live in. Based on my earlier experience in 2005 and the trust I had in them, I had recommended PASO to other parrot owners in the past. I can no longer recommend them, and I urge anyone who is thinking about leaving their birds there to consider carefully whether PASO really is still a good place to bring your loved ones.

Non-random things about me

1. I like to do little quasi-scientific experiments in my spare time.
2. Food should feed the soul.
3. Non-humans are more intelligent than most of us give credit for.
4. I strive to help my animal companions achieve self-actualization and emotional equanimity.
5. Education, critical thinking and love can solve every important problem.
6. I'm frequently accused of being an unrealistic idealist.
7. I'm a moral realist.
8. I like to grow...

Love or love not. There is no entitlement.

I got some interesting responses on my last post about Men Who Think They're Entitled To Women. Niels comments, "It's not that I'm entitled to a conversation, but I, like everyone else in the social setting, am entitled to politeness. If you don't want to be polite, don't go to a social event."

I disagree.

First of all, nobody is entitled to politeness to the point where they can threaten or demand it from others. However, I do agree that everyone deserves civility and courtesy. We're just not "entitled" in the sense that we can rack up points to justify mistreating others when things don't go our way. Respect, consideration, courtesy and love are gifts that we could all give to our fellow citizens more often than we do, but they must be freely given, not obliged nor coerced. While we may certainly deserve a polite "go away" request, we're not entitled to overstay our welcome in order to insist on getting what we deserve.

Secondly, a bar or nightclub is not a "social event" by default but rather a business catering to various interests. Examples of social events are dinner or cocktail parties, wedding receptions, dances, birthday celebrations, and house parties, where guests are invited and there is presumably some assurance that everyone in attendance has someone in common and nobody is an axe murderer.

From a young age, we're taught not to talk to strangers, so there is a lot more riding on subjective experience when we don't know who we're dealing with; some strangers seem more friendly and trustworthy than others, while some strangers appear more threatening. In your "Psycho" situation, Niels, I think you set yourself apart from the average Joe as a male stranger who wouldn't leave when asked, and who would instead respond with condescension... so, probably not the friendly, trustworthy, non-threatening kind of stranger. Even in a real social event, it wouldn't be appropriate to patronize or insult one's social contacts. In a public place like a club or bar, it's no less inappropriate to plant oneself at a girl's table, refuse to leave, then diss her.

Would you scope out a restaurant and sit yourself down at the hottest girls' table while they're getting their entrees, then treat them like they're idiots when they say you're not welcome? The fact that it's a club with drinks instead of a restaurant with food doesn't make that much of a difference.

Thirdly, it seems a little ungenerous to dictate for others their reasons for going out. Of course politeness is nicer than rudeness, but I hope Niels isn't suggesting that women implicitly submit to advances from men whenever they attend a social event.

Itotem comments, "As a guy, I kind of cringe when I see other men want to banter right away with women. It's not ALWAYS situationally relevant."

Thanks for the great comment, Itotem! It's good to know that you share my observation that hitting on women is not always desirable. Niels, it's pretty clear that you were at the club to meet someone like that hot girl. But I think she made it equally obvious that she was NOT there to meet someone like you.

Flirting and bantering are consensual social interactions. As soon as someone voices a desire to stop interacting, you need to respect that request or else you risk crossing the line into harassment. Your expectation of what is supposed to happen in an ideal world is irrelevant, since you shouldn't cross that line, ever. This isn't just about etiquette and social graces, it's about acting in a way that doesn't threaten the well-being of others.

As a female, being objectified is nothing special. Sometimes it's mildly offensive: I don't enjoy crude remarks being made to me on the street. Some women might, but I don't. Sometimes it's even mildly threatening: If a strange guy starts walking with me at night and won't go away, it's a bit creepy. Flirting only works when there's some personal connection. It doesn't work when a guy's just talking to me because he's slapped a few labels on me and finds those words and images desirable. That's just tiresome and makes me look for the quickest way out.

So, do me a favour. Next time you talk to a girl, recognize her humanity and like something about her total being, be drawn to something about her other than how much you'd like to have a piece of her. If you don't find something that makes you care about her as a person and she doesn't think you have much to offer her either, just go away nicely.

No loss on either side.

They're baaaack! Entitlement Attack!

I've been out of my Blogger account for a few weeks because they changed it over, logged me out and I couldn't remember my username and password. But, I finally set to work and got it straightened out today. Thanks for the impetus, Melville!

Lately, I've been coming across way too many men who have been discourteous and rude to me at best, and at worst, harassing me and my acquaintances. What do they all have in common? A sense of entitlement. Just because they want my attention, they think they deserve it, and therefore, I'm a horrible and hostile person for not giving them the attention they deserve. Never mind that I might be busy with my own thoughts or activities -- I'm the one who's rude if I don't drop everything as soon as they want my time.

That's why I have a bone to pick with Men Who Think They're Entitled To Women, or MWTTETW for short (pronounced "mau-tet-ew"). Most of my encounters with MWTTETW have been on the Internet recently, thank goodness. Encountering one in the real world is scary to say the least: Because such a man thinks he's entitled to you, he'll often get angry when you don't play ball. Any subsequent hostility or violence on his part is thus "justified" in his skewed little brain, because none of it would have happened if you just wanted him back like you were supposed to! Presto, now it's the woman's fault he's angry and violent! Neat trick, huh?

I figured I've been really unlucky these past few weeks, I've been coming across MWTTETW on websites, IMs, chat, anywhere on the Internet I go, it seems. Now, if you're an Entitled-feeling Man yourself, you're probably thinking at this point that I did something to deserve this negative attention. Sorry, but in all but one case, I was doing absolutely nothing to attract attention other than being online when the Entitlement Attack hit. In the one other case, I was involved in a public discussion that led to the guy messaging me privately to tell me he wanted to get to know me and be my friend, while I tried to parry his advances.

A typical Entitlement Attack:
- I'm around, minding my own business and doing my own thing, with or without friends.
- Man notices me, tries to get my attention, start up a conversation.
- I politely decline, mention I'm busy, act otherwise disinterested or unavailable.
- Man gets angry, attacks me for being anti-social, rude, hostile for not wanting to socialize with him.

If you've ever been the male in this scenario, please consider the following for a moment: If you're the kind of guy who gets angry just because a woman doesn't want to talk to you right then, why would she want to talk with you EVER? It's not fun, it's not social and it's not enjoyable. It's annoying, irritating and unpleasant at best. At worst, if you continue, it's threatening, stalking and harassment. What part of this is she supposed to enjoy? Why should she like you at all?

I was hoping I was just a freak of nature, getting a lot of bad luck from MWTTETW, but then I went surfing on the web and found that not only are there men who do this to unlucky women like me in private, but there are men out there who do this and still feel entitled enough afterwards to publicly talk about about how they should have put the girl in her place!

Take a look at BATG participant Niels Hoven's blog article, "Apparently I'm a Psycho". While the article is aptly named, unfortunately, it appears that he meant it ironically. No, I guess we can't expect self-awareness from MWTTETW who blog about it like it's cool. Basically, the typical scene goes like this: Niels goes to a nightclub, sees some hot girls and approaches them to flirt. One girl doesn't want him there, and one doesn't seem to mind so much. The "unfriendly" girl hints that he should scram, but Niels invariably overlooks these first hints and responds instead by "bantering" or "vibing" with the girls. The hints become less subtle, so Niels blatantly disregards increasingly explicit requests to leave, and often even jokes about the requests instead of respecting them. The scenario ends when the girls can't take it anymore and leave because he won't, or more recently in "Psycho", he finally takes the request semi-seriously and makes his exit. Good to know that he has evolved somewhat...

The good thing is that he DOES leave after being explicitly asked (let's not even talk about how he grabs the first excuse to return to their table). The bad part is the so-called lesson he's learned from this recurring experience. Does he perhaps learn that he shouldn't sit down uninvited? No. Does he learn that he should respect earlier hints and requests to leave? Nope. What Niels Hoven learns is that some girls are "beautiful on the outside and ugly on the inside" and that he "[needs] to lay down the hammer and just tell the girl that her behavior is unacceptable." Whoa.

Am I the only one who thinks that telling the girl that her behaviour was "unacceptable" would have been inexcusably rude considering how he insinuated himself into a "social situation" with her that she didn't even want to be in?

NEWS FLASH: She is NOT rude simply because she wants you to go away. YOU were rude for ignoring her less-than-subtle hints to get you to leave after sitting down uninvited at her table. Just because you want to talk to a girl, doesn't mean that you deserve her time or that she's obliged to give you any. It's this kind of attitude that eventually leads to a man harassing a woman and telling her it's her fault for not wanting him back.

The scary part of this is that Niels is a coach at Art of Attraction workshops, where he apparently teaches men how to flirt with women and be the most attractive versions of themselves. Is he teaching men to ignore women's wishes? Is he teaching men that it's all right to violate women ("It's okay as long as she's hot and you wanna talk to her")?

This is just wrong. Her desirability never justifies your sense of entitlement. And if you're afflicted with a sense of entitlement, at least keep it to yourself and don't infect other perfectly nice men with that attitude.

Who I Am

I started blogging not too many posts ago and I got a comment here yesterday asking me, "Who are you?" There's no way I can do it all in one post, or even in a blog, but I figured I'd fill in some blanks. Seven, to be exact.

Things that grab my attention:
1. Ethics, morals, principles.
2. Sustainable living. Vegetable gardening.
3. Art and creative expression.
4. Learning about the world around us, education and critical thinking. Play. Wonder.
5. Good food, great friends, meaningful conversation.
6. Kindness and love. Giving and receiving.
7. Happy endings and beginnings.

The best compliment I ever received was when a friend told me that he thought I did what Gandhi said:

You must be the change you want to see in the world.

Integrity vs. Reality

On Week 5's episode of the reality TV show Beauty & The Geek, the challenge for the boys is to go to a dog park with a dog and get as many phone numbers from women as they could.

Ethical Dilemma:
You're a man in a reality TV show with a money prize if you beat out the other contestants to be the last one standing. The task is to grab a dog and go to a dog park while trying to procure the phone numbers of as many women as possible. Is it ethical to involve unsuspecting innocents in your game and lie to them in order to get more phone numbers? If you get her number and say you'll call her, is there an ethical obligation to follow up and actually call her? Men apparently do this for free all the time, but does it change the ethics of the situation that this is done as part of a reality TV contest?

Who would do better in a challenge of ethics, a beauty or a geek? It could be a properly obscure area to test them all on!

I wish the TV show itself would directly address some of the ethics, but maybe that's why I've been on Neils's blog, reading comments about some of the stuff that went on. On that episode, Neils presumably didn't get any numbers and spoke of how "dirty" the challenge made him feel. Was it just insecurity and fear of rejection, as he apparently indicated on TV? Or was it about a larger question of principle and ethics, as he implies on his blog?

At this point in this case, I'm leaning toward the former, since this is from a blog of a guy who's constantly bragging about flirting and "vibing" with beautiful women. Does he get the permission of the women he flirts with to publish their encounters on his blog? As well, he gets income from coaching other men on how to flirt with women, so there's definitely a financial interest. Does he tell the women he meets that their encounter will be publicized and used to further his career? Does he get permission to publish what they say in private to him? If it's morally questionable to use a girl and get her phone number to win a challenge unbeknownst to her, surely it's questionable to flirt with girls and publish personal conversations to gain infamy.

Mario on the show seemed to have a good ethical solution to the Phone Number Challenge. He ran around telling people something that was basically true: he was asking for phone numbers to improve his self-esteem and social skills. He didn't seem to represent to anyone that the request was anything other than an exercise, or that he intended to call them.

From what Niels has revealed on the show and his blog, there has been a lot of inconsistency that for his sake, I hope he will address, in response to reader comments. Of course, if the whole thing is indeed meant to drum up business for his work, we'll be less likely to see that kind of personal integrity and this assessment might be right on the money.

So to speak.

Beauty is not sublime.

I got pretty stressed out last month with work, so I've been relaxing in front of the TV more than usual this week. I caught Beauty & The Geek for the first time this week and saw a few episodes in a marathon tonight. BATG is a reality contest show along the lines of Survivor, with challenges to win and eliminations every episode, except the gimmick here is that the contestants are couples, a female "beauty" and a male "geek" who have been thrust together to cooperate as a team.

What I like about it is that a lot of the participants seem genuinely changed by the experience for the better. For the most part, I can see many of the beauties and geeks relate to each other as humans, befriending each other and getting to know the substance behind the stereotypes. In that sense, it's a nice hour of TV with flashes of optimism for humanity.

+ + +

After the BATG marathon, I surfed around on the web, curious how real the "reality" TV show was. I found the blog of Niels, one of the guys on the show, so I started browsing. One post had a comment that smacked of such sexist ignorance that I felt it warranted a response, my first comment to a stranger's personal blog ever.

Written by someone calling himself "Asian Playboy":

"...the thing is, intelligence isn’t rewarded in a woman and can actually be a negative thing. I remember reading that, statistically the more educated and intelligent a woman is (beyond standard college level), the less likely her chances at relationships and marriage.

Ergo, the world punishes excessive displays of intelligence by women."

I'm not sure if it's deliberate misogyny or just ignorance that leads to the assumption that a woman's single status is a result of being acted upon by a punishing world (of men?) rather than an active choice.

While it may be that educated women are statistically less likely to marry, this may be because they have higher standards for their mates, rather than because they're not chosen by men. In my experience, intelligence IS indeed rewarded in women, as well as men, by their own kind: other people of intelligence.

While I agree that there may be fewer privileges for women of ability when compared to men of comparable ability, that's very different than presuming that smart women are just waiting to be chosen by any man for marriage. Educated and intelligent women simply have fewer choices in romance because most don't cherish the idea of living with inferior men. Naturally, people with high standards have fewer potentials who meet those standards.

More than anything, it's about our choices and our willingness to take risks and go beyond our fears and self-doubts. We choose what we want, and usually we're attracted to people with the same best qualities as we have. An outwardly good-looking person who values beauty above all else may want a similarly superficial mate. An intelligent and ethical person will probably search for the same. It's a lot harder to find intelligent, ethical people in this world than good-looking ones.

"Just so what is morality but high intelligence?" - Henry James