No we’re not–that’s another debate. We’re talking about money that’s earmarked to help out nonhuman animals.
If you want to debate that special pool of money that is marked, “LEGAL TENDER: GOOD FOR MAKING THE WORLD BETTER,” that’s a fine debate to have (although I’ve never seen any money that has that writing on it–can you give me a cite that it exists?)
But the demarcation you want to make–separating entertainment money from charity money, but not separating human charity money from nonhuman charity money–is nonsensical and incoherent.
I think this is very important. Animals are utterly innocent, and if something bad happens the them, chances are, it’s our fault. Take New Orleans, for example. There was a lot of debate as to where the fault lay for what happened. Did the residents have some sort of share of the blame for staying in town, or living there in the first place? People could argue with that. What you can’t argue is whether or not the animals left behind to starve to death (by our failings and our policies about evacuations) were at fault for their situation.
We domesticated these animals for our use, and it’s our responsibility to see they get basic care, or a humane death, now that we’ve ruined their ability to fend for themselves. Wandering in the toxic Katrina flood water is not the third acceptable option. Our tax dollars (once the stupid government got moving) are seeing the people of New Orleans have food and shelter. I chose to put my money towards the creatures who had nothing, who had nothing but charity to depend on.
(I also find helping animals more satisfying and easier, to be honest. Your average homeless cat is thrilled if you give it a cardboard box and some cheap kibble. How long does it take for people to start whining about cots, MREs, and 2nd-hand t-shirts? It just seems so hopeless because it’s impossible to make people happy. Ever offer a homeless person a sandwich and have them turn it down, because they wanted money instead?)