I'm still feeling nauseous and angry.
I just got the following from the American Veterinary Medical Association's website:
"Scientific data do indicate that cats that have destructive scratching behavior are more likely to be euthanatized [sic], or more readily relinquished, released, or abandoned, thereby contributing to the homeless cat population. [Bullshit.-Ed.] Where scratching behavior is an issue as to whether or not a particular cat can remain as an acceptable household pet in a particular home, surgical onychectomy may be considered.
"There is no scientific evidence that declawing leads to behavioral abnormalities when the behavior of declawed cats is compared with that of cats in control groups." [Bullshit. Again. -Ed.]
Yes, one of the main medical groups for veterinarians in the US still insists on declawing as an option for cat persons. Yes, on their website, the AVMA lists alternatives to this mutilating, medically unnecessary procedure, such as claw caps, ready access to scratching posts, etc.
But the AVMA continues to refuse to call cat declawing what it really is: animal cruelty.
Declawing isn't "just" the removal of claws. Declawing is amputation.
"But why would the AVMA say such things?" you might ask. To which I'd reply: follow the money.
Visit The Paw Project and watch the film on what the TPP is all about.
If you're a cat person and you've considered declawing but haven't learned what's really involved in this procedure, get thee hence and research. If, after doing so, you still think declawing is ethical, then you have no business having a cat in your residence.
Look at it this way: human doctors don't cut off the end digits on the hands of patients who have itching problems.
Pay attention: a cat is higher in overall worth to any piece of furniture. If you think having a cat would be nice, get a toy stuffed animal cat instead.
If you'd never do such a thing to your kittehs, please consider donating to TPP or spreading the message in your area. Ask your vet if they do declawing. If the answer's yes, you might wanna find a vet that doesn't.
7/24/2015
How far CNN has fallen
Back in the early days of the 24-hour news cycle, CNN was actually trying to be balanced in their reporting. It was a news channel worth watching because it reported the news in a journalistically appropriate way. CNN followed the 4 Ws + H of reporting and regularly snagged at least two people for interviews -- who were actually connected to the event being reported -- for every story they aired. Breaking news was fairly well done as well.
Now?
This is just one of the people CNN had on air for a piece on the Sandra Bland arrest. Harry Houck is a retired NYPD detective who runs his own PI business now. He's also a "law enforcement analyst" for CNN. He said that if Bland hadn't acted "arrogant" to the officer, the whole incident would never have happened.
That's a really big assumption, Mr. Houck, and doesn't even take into account a citizen's rights when stopped by a LEO. You know, like protection against unlawful search and seizure?
For shame, CNN, having this person appear as a "law enforcement analyst" on your channel. It appears that your news director has no qualms about paying any hothead who used to carry a badge to appear as a "law enforcement analyst." Does the ND even know what that phrase means? I bet not. Claiming someone is a "law enforcement analyst" means absolutely NOTHING in terms of accurate news reporting. All it means is that some person analyzes law enforcement. No background, no credentials, no other potential qualification is included in that phrase.
Ah, but such a euphemism it is. It's just like Silly Putty, you can mush it and shape it anywhichway to suit your needs.
Which is what CNN has done.
Being an LEO for 25 years says very little about the quality of that LEO's work. Running one's own PI agency says very little about the quality of that PI's work. I doubt Houck knows how to analyze the contents list of a box of noodles.
My late husband, who was a soldier and a police officer, would be angered by this whole situation: CNN swirling down the toilet bowl in a never-ending whirlpool of gabblery masquerading as news, police departments all over the US getting military-grade equipment (there's a damn good reason it has that name) instead of continuing education in psychology and medicine as it pertains to their field, and people -- and let's remember, folks, they're all people of color -- getting killed by police who seemingly think it's okay to shoot first and ask questions later. My husband never had to raise his voice while he was on duty as a cop, never felt using his gun was necessary in 12 years on the job, and spent nearly five years as a field training officer for rookies and new hires. He was admired by other officers for his quiet demeanor and ability to defuse situations that could have turned violent.
I'm glad he's not alive to witness the destruction of his last field of employment.
Two things I live by: consider the source (for any situation), and use more than three information sources before making any decision. These two things have saved me a whole lotta grief over the years.
Try 'em out, if you haven't already. You might be surprised at how different the world looks.
Now?
This is just one of the people CNN had on air for a piece on the Sandra Bland arrest. Harry Houck is a retired NYPD detective who runs his own PI business now. He's also a "law enforcement analyst" for CNN. He said that if Bland hadn't acted "arrogant" to the officer, the whole incident would never have happened.
That's a really big assumption, Mr. Houck, and doesn't even take into account a citizen's rights when stopped by a LEO. You know, like protection against unlawful search and seizure?
For shame, CNN, having this person appear as a "law enforcement analyst" on your channel. It appears that your news director has no qualms about paying any hothead who used to carry a badge to appear as a "law enforcement analyst." Does the ND even know what that phrase means? I bet not. Claiming someone is a "law enforcement analyst" means absolutely NOTHING in terms of accurate news reporting. All it means is that some person analyzes law enforcement. No background, no credentials, no other potential qualification is included in that phrase.
Ah, but such a euphemism it is. It's just like Silly Putty, you can mush it and shape it anywhichway to suit your needs.
Which is what CNN has done.
Being an LEO for 25 years says very little about the quality of that LEO's work. Running one's own PI agency says very little about the quality of that PI's work. I doubt Houck knows how to analyze the contents list of a box of noodles.
My late husband, who was a soldier and a police officer, would be angered by this whole situation: CNN swirling down the toilet bowl in a never-ending whirlpool of gabblery masquerading as news, police departments all over the US getting military-grade equipment (there's a damn good reason it has that name) instead of continuing education in psychology and medicine as it pertains to their field, and people -- and let's remember, folks, they're all people of color -- getting killed by police who seemingly think it's okay to shoot first and ask questions later. My husband never had to raise his voice while he was on duty as a cop, never felt using his gun was necessary in 12 years on the job, and spent nearly five years as a field training officer for rookies and new hires. He was admired by other officers for his quiet demeanor and ability to defuse situations that could have turned violent.
I'm glad he's not alive to witness the destruction of his last field of employment.
Two things I live by: consider the source (for any situation), and use more than three information sources before making any decision. These two things have saved me a whole lotta grief over the years.
Try 'em out, if you haven't already. You might be surprised at how different the world looks.
6/19/2015
NYT, Time and Bloomberg can STFU
Honest journalists are once again hanging their heads in grief over the sour grapes of some MSM entities, this time for not being invited to a private party. At the White House.
Holy crybabies, Batman.
President Obama deserves a private life. Being President of the United States is not an automatic I'll-show-you-everything card for the press. Yes, government should operate "in the sunshine" as often as is possible. There are times when doing so is against the public interest, i.e. classified information (though why something is designated classified is a debatable point). Outside of those items, actions and words meant for public/media consumption should be available for public/media consumption.
The President himself paid for this party. He's chary with information about his private life because he has the right, like every other American, to do so. Public figures should expect a certain amount of increased media notice, but there is no law that forces such folks to make available every last thing they do. Politicians are public figures; if they want to keep their non-public lives private, that's their choice.
President Obama and his family can and should do whatever they wish that has no bearing on the political arena or how he conducts himself as the US president. Might laws be broken in such circumstances? Anything is possible. But living in a surveillance state is not the answer to lowering the crimes rate.
I applaud President Obama for his self-care. Doing the hardest job in the world is not a gig for a workaholic. A person cannot care for others if they don't take care of themselves first, and that's what I believe the POTUS did with this private get-together: letting off steam, relaxing, having some fun. Damn, we all deserve that, right? Why should a president be whinged at for doing the same?
And here's another question: why are these MSMites concerned about a private party when there is so much else to cover? Hell, there's no shortage of war, famine, genocide, domestic terrorism, crooked pols and stupid laws -- all in our own country.
Yeah, I said it. Deal with it.
5/02/2015
Really, CNN?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/02/us/freddie-gray-baltimore-death/
"Police Under Fire"? OMG, so MUCH fail in that title. Centering the cops who got arrested for Freddie Gray's homicide instead of Mr. Gray and the kill-all-black-males mindset so prevalent in so many US cities is just wrong.
Off to the pit with you.
"Police Under Fire"? OMG, so MUCH fail in that title. Centering the cops who got arrested for Freddie Gray's homicide instead of Mr. Gray and the kill-all-black-males mindset so prevalent in so many US cities is just wrong.
Off to the pit with you.
1/18/2015
AG Holder, FBI: Time to clean up Florida's corrections system
There are lots and lots of things deserving of the descriptive phrase "vile and pernicious," but -- for this week, at least -- this one takes the cake.
The DoJ and FBI need to go full bore on this shit:
1. Investigations on all reports of prisoner abuse by corrections personnel, arrests and indictments made where supported by evidence. If more money is needed to hire qualified personnel to complete this task, ALLOCATE IT.
2. Any laws allowing Homeland Security to pass on military-grade weapons and-or equipment must be rescinded and all such items removed from any police agency which currently has them. Agencies may then request items be re-provided but NOT be automatically certain of getting them. Justification for such items must be supported by thorough documentation of need.
3. All job requirements for corrections personnel on ALL levels must be reviewed and revised to higher standards, to include higher pay for corrections officers and staff, EXCEPT for the administrators. Lack of equity between corrections and administrative staffs' incomes must be resolved. Better pay attracts better-qualified candidates. ABSOLUTELY NO POLICE ACADEMY WASHOUTS OR REJECTS.
4. For every person convicted and sentenced to serve time for crimes committed while working as corrections personnel, one person convicted for a non-violent crime must be released, starting with those who've been incarcerated the longest.
5. State laws concerning drug possession and use must be overhauled, to reduce the number of persons incarcerated for non-violent crimes.
That's just for starters, of course.
The Dept. of Homeland Security is a dangerous and unnecessary federal agency. It holds far too much power under one umbrella. Cooperation between agencies can be achieved by other means without centralizing so much legal and political power in one department. I've held this opinion ever since I first heard of this department's creation nearly 14 years ago.
The more we give away our freedoms for a little more "security," the less free we become.
The DoJ and FBI need to go full bore on this shit:
1. Investigations on all reports of prisoner abuse by corrections personnel, arrests and indictments made where supported by evidence. If more money is needed to hire qualified personnel to complete this task, ALLOCATE IT.
2. Any laws allowing Homeland Security to pass on military-grade weapons and-or equipment must be rescinded and all such items removed from any police agency which currently has them. Agencies may then request items be re-provided but NOT be automatically certain of getting them. Justification for such items must be supported by thorough documentation of need.
3. All job requirements for corrections personnel on ALL levels must be reviewed and revised to higher standards, to include higher pay for corrections officers and staff, EXCEPT for the administrators. Lack of equity between corrections and administrative staffs' incomes must be resolved. Better pay attracts better-qualified candidates. ABSOLUTELY NO POLICE ACADEMY WASHOUTS OR REJECTS.
4. For every person convicted and sentenced to serve time for crimes committed while working as corrections personnel, one person convicted for a non-violent crime must be released, starting with those who've been incarcerated the longest.
5. State laws concerning drug possession and use must be overhauled, to reduce the number of persons incarcerated for non-violent crimes.
That's just for starters, of course.
The Dept. of Homeland Security is a dangerous and unnecessary federal agency. It holds far too much power under one umbrella. Cooperation between agencies can be achieved by other means without centralizing so much legal and political power in one department. I've held this opinion ever since I first heard of this department's creation nearly 14 years ago.
The more we give away our freedoms for a little more "security," the less free we become.