Eugene Oregon, Literally killing two birds with one stone!

Killing Pets: Eugene Oregon’s Innovative Homeless Strategy!

Well done! My hands are literally hurting from all the applause I’ve been giving you. You don’t hear me, I know (zoom, mute).

Your latest accomplishment: revising definitions in Chapter 4 Offense 4.330, “Animal Control,” to shorten homeless people’s lives by exterminating their pets is brilliant!

Continuing your policies of eradication, you are sure to have positive outcomes: higher property values. I’m salivating like a Pavlovian dog at the thought of an idyllic community of a few rich landowners and happy technology sector renters!

Envision Eugene, am I right? Have you read “The Ones’ Who Walk Away from Omelas?” That place sounds like Eugene!

You’re super!

Last week, I applauded you for criminalizing dumpster owners for allowing homeless people to scavenge in their dumpsters for cans and food. I suggested to you that you innovate a compact the homeless into gasoline program to meet current needs, and providing much needed “housing” (though temporary) and producing clean, green energy.

Win, win! It’s yet another example of what we can accomplish with the much ballyhooed, public-private partnership!

Definitely non-exploitive, public-private partnership

But I must doff my cap to you now, since I see that you are far ahead of me. You address the problem — “How do we depress homeless people enough so that they might agree to being turned into gasoline?” Great question! Your answer: kill their pets.

I understand your difficulty, however, in implementing this bold initiative. Of course, police have been shooting renters’ pets for a long time, and they’ve killed thousands of pets nationwide. That police policy produced a lot of pet chunks, and fur chunks, and blood splatter, literally thousands of gallons of the stuff if a pet is on average 2–3 gallons.Of course those gallons of pet blood and guts were behind closed doors, and renters had to clean that up or loose their deposit.

Unfortunately, even today, the “public” has qualms about the kind of “open air” public pet killing people used to so enjoy, like, say, in Roman times— and particularly the splattering part of it. But you are problem solvers!

Outdoor pet firing squad. Polls found: too disturbing for some children viewers.

Homeless people don’t have walls or a roof. So, how do you kill their pets so people with children and political power don’t see it?

Of course, it’s by implementing a “safety policy” and calling it “animal welfare.” Well done!

Your presentation is brilliant — real craftsmanship. Hats off. It can seem to the “public” that criminalizing “keeping” animals in “temporary shelters” or “cardboard boxes” or “cars” protects “animal welfare” and targets “certain people” who mistreat their animals. And we’re all thinking the same thing: Rednecks! You can admit it.

This guy looks like what I think of when I think of guy keeping an “animal in a cardboard box.” I don’t think, loving person living with an animal in a box. Brilliant use of cultural stereotypes!

You’re purposely, and did I say, brilliantly, leaning on the stereotype of white rednecks in a trailer park with cars on blocks in the yard and probably an outhouse. And who cares about criminalizing animal-mistreating, racist rednecks with outhouses, am I right? Certainly not the citizens of Eugene.

But we know, wink-wink, that you are actually targeting people who don’t even have a trailer park or cars on blocks or even that outhouse! And you target those people even more by taking and killing the very companionship animals who are helping them survive the fact that they’re living like animals owned by racist rednecks in trailer parks!

It’s kind of like, if the homeless person was a mistreated animal, owned by some redneck, and the mistreated pet had a pet, like another animal as a pet, then you, City Council and Mayor Vinis are like the animal-mistreating, white racist redneck. Get it?

Killing pets is sure to depress homeless people and make them compliant and suicidal. Great choice!

It’s like you’re the trailer-park, animal-mistreating, racist redneck who lives in a trailer and has those cars on blocks (and let’s assume trash in the yard and an outhouse) who doesn’t just mistreat their pet by forcing them to live in a shit-hole cardboard box, but also mistreats the pet by killing the pet’s pet.

Did I mention, brilliant!

But it is more than that, isn’t it?

City Council Seeks Positive Outcomes

It’s about outcomes, and I certainly admire your “big think” on inevitable and predictable outcomes on your way to fulfilling your “Master Plan.” It isn’t about killing pets after all. It’s about killing the people who love those pets.

Exploit the human need for love and compassionate connection, creating fracture, dislocation, and emotional trauma, leading to mental instability and a further need of services which you can withhold! Well done.

In order to manage homeless people toward a “final solution,” as part of a “master plan,” it isn’t enough to torture, ostracize, and dislocate homeless people as you rightly surmise. It’s not enough to have sticks.

People form survival communities, real shit-holes but it’s all they’ve got!

Stick: You bulldoze those.

They eat the garbage you throw away!

Stick: You criminalize dumpster diving.

They collect cans to support their families!

Stick: You shoot them for being in the wrong neighborhood!

You seem to have it all covered, but do you?

You seem to be closing off every avenue for survival, and yet. . . . people still show this pesky resilience. We must be forgetting something. What is it?

Pets are a Life Sustaining Carrot

Bravo! I see that you’ve read the studies: people with companion animals live longer. That’s literally statistics! We human beings thrive when we are needed. We feel positive self-esteem (serotonin for lay people) when we have a mutual relationship with other mammals. Pet’s are kind of like Zoloft, except they don’t make money for pharmaceutical companies.

Unlike people, pets don’t judge. A dog thinks you’re swell. A cat doesn’t care. It’s great. So a lot of us choose animals to have significant relationship with. I had a friend who thought his bird dog would be in heaven with him, literally (Russ). Maybe even a few of you, on City Council, have pets? I have Guinea pigs, named Fluffy and Squeaky.

Love and the desire for companionship is so deeply wired into us and our instinct as to be simply part of what makes us this community-forming human-animal, both loving and wanting love.

And I applaud you for understanding that this need to love and be loved is a weakness you can exploit to achieve your material aims! Well done!

They don’t need pets to feel good about themselves!

As managers, we know the secret to human compliance technologies: carrots and sticks, or as we sometimes say, pleasure and pain. You clearly have your sticks sharpened and pointy, well done!

But continuous torture and physical distress is not enough, not when human beings can replenish themselves with the love of companionship from animals. Honestly, all the sticks in the world won’t do any good as long as these people have their four legged carrots.

As you correctly deduced, we must kill that four-legged carrot!

Two-legged carrot.

When you know, you act. That’s what I really love about you.

In regard to this dire need to exterminate the homeless in order to raise property values for our esteemed and moral “stakeholders,” we must destroy this persistent emotional stability among the homeless population furnished by pets. By killing the pets you will certainly accomplish positive outcomes in homeless deaths.

But how to get Eugene, pet-loving liberals to go for this necessary policy of extermination?

Knowing that few have the “stomach” for absolutely necessary, no possible alternative, pet-killing, you have “stamped” pet killing — the vehicle to the larger goal of homeless people killing, as the generous carrot of “animal welfare.”

And you headline your “amended” crimes with an “anti-bias amendment” to shroud the anti homeless, pet and homeless people killing at its heart.

Smart! You know that getting the laws on the books is only one part — then it’s about enforcement! Do you you enforce “anti-bias” or “pet killing?” Ha, ha, ha! Am I right?

Certainly it’s a joke to think you’d enforce anti-bias crime, protecting homeless people from targeted hate crimes (like pet-killing) when you are targeting homeless people with a hate crime! What are you going to do? Arrest yourselves? I’d love to see that!

It’s like some gloriously hypocritical . . um, can I call it a “yin-yang” without being called a racist?

Or is it ironic? Like “rain” on your “wedding day” where “rain” means killing your pet and your “wedding day” is being homeless?

Ironic. It’s like having your pet killed while you’re homeless.

It is really something, that’s for sure. It’s like the force of hypocrisy moves strongly through you.

Literally, at the yin-yang of hypocrisy, Yoda, you are.

City Council and Mayor Vinis, the yin-yang Yoda of pet killing!

Anyway, I digress. I wanted to say, I applaud you. Homeless people have basically nothing and that is way too much. Already with a higher morbidity rate and suicide rate, it’s awesome of you to target them by killing their pets.

And with broken spirits, we can be sure to accelerate their mortality and meet and hopefully exceed the expectations of your “master plan” achieving your final solution far sooner that anyone might have dreamed. In any event, the statistics of homelessness are certain to decline and that will certainly be a feather in your cap!

We’ll need to collect bodies, of course— another jobs opportunity —but I was thinking, maybe Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Yeh, Mike Clark, and Greg Evans, you can all go out together as you campaign for your Wards (3, 4, 5, and 6) in 2022? And so pleased to see the old and white among you running for Mayor in 2024. We need more representation!

With your proposed amendment, you are literally killing two birds with one stone, where the first “bird” is homeless people’s pets and the second “bird” is homeless people themselves. Vote yeah! After, you might collect the bodies yourselves. You two can kill the two bird of “campaigning” for your council seats and lauding your accomplishments!

Local EV Arcimoto. Room enough for a Councilor and a dead homeless person. Campaign-friendly green solution!

Or, we can collect bodies with an automated EV if you want to create a “green” job for a robot, maybe with some kind of robotic olfactory sensor? LMK.

Well, let’s be honest, yin-yang Yoda, you are not smart enough to come up with this innovative program on your own. This, like most you do, is trickledown policy from the top. But you aren’t so stupid to bite the hand that feeds you with teeth made from moral conscience.

There is not utopian paradise without sacrifice! Thank you for making Eugene our own little Omelas by sacrificing homeless pets and our most vulnerable community members. Keep up the good work.




Stegner Fellow, Stanford University; Spivey and Chancellor Fellow, University of Tennessee. PhD, MFA

Love podcasts or audiobooks? Learn on the go with our new app.

Recommended from Medium

Games to Teach Dogs Emotional Self-Control

Different Types Of Pet Parent At The Vet

Entry twenty-three

10 Tips For A Happy Labrador Puppy

10 Tips For A Happy Labrador Puppy

Joe Gets Skunked

We Text Pictures of Dagney to Make our Kids Jealous — RVing in Retirement


The Best $5.00 I Ever Spent

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Otis Haschemeyer

Otis Haschemeyer

Stegner Fellow, Stanford University; Spivey and Chancellor Fellow, University of Tennessee. PhD, MFA

More from Medium

Because the field of semiotics covers quite a diversity of signs, Umberto Eco has developed a…


What do algorithms have to do with civil rights?

Every generation gets the Dimes Square they deserve

Watermelon Rind