Winkie the Cat

Here is a link that I would like to share for people who don't know about the plight of Winkie: http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=275879&id=516512252

WINKIE NEEDS OUR HELP... We are trying to save the life of a cat, Winkie, who was turned in to the Howard County, Maryland, Animal Control shelter by a local resident named Chrissy who didn't realize they would kill him and is desparately trying to get him out before his kill date of March 3rd. 

Chrissy emailed a local animal rescue group, Companion Animal Rescue Alliance, about a friendly cat she'd found at her apartment complex, which doesn't allow pets, but the rescue group contact person was preparing for a board meeting and didn't get back to her for 2 days, and by then Chrissy had taken Winkie to the shelter. 
The shelter director insists that Winkie is aggressive (he's not; he's just scared; Chrissy has pictures of him in her apartment cuddling with her daughter) and won't release him to any rescue groups or Chrissy (a relative of Chrissy who lives nearby in a house wants to adopt him, so he has a place to go). She has said she will kill him on March 3, 10 days after he was turned in.
What NKR fans can do to help Winkie get out of the shelter and off of death row:
Send an email requesting that Winki not be killed but released to Companion Animal Rescue Alliance. Please communicate that it is not ethical to kill Winkie who has a rescue group willing to take responsiblility for him, rehabilitate him if needed and find a loving home for him. Also, ask them to respond to your mail and tell what they have decided to do about Winkie.
dbaracco@howardcountymd.gov
Let's not let Winkie down...Steve
PS...Please Share everywhere...

It is necessary to help this cat, at least that's how I feel. If we can. There is no reason for him to be killed. He has a place to go. He has people willing to rehabilitate any aggressiveness in him if it is found.

Contact Ms. Baracco about Winkie's release in the follow ways, if you can:

E-mail: dbaracco@howardcountymd.gov

Mail: ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION

Deborah M. Baracco

8576 Davis Rd

Columbia, MD 21045

Phone: 410-313-2780

Letter to Animal Control Division Administrator of Animal Control Shelter in Howard County, Maryland about Winkie the Cat

Ms. Baracco,

I was shocked and dismayed to learn tonight that there is a cat, Winkie, in your Animal Control Shelter in Howard County. This cat is friendly and there is evidence to support that. However, this cat is also afraid and like most animals when they are afraid, they can be a bit defensive when they perceive threats. This does not make this cat aggressive. The woman that turned Winkie in regrets this after realizing later that the shelter was a kill shelter and plans to kill Winkie on March 3. Ever since, she's been trying to get him out. There is a rescue group, Companion Animal Rescue Alliance, which is ready to take him in and find him a home, to rehabilitate him if necessary since the Animal Control Shelter seems worried about aggression. There is even a woman who is in an ideal position to take him in, who is a relative of the woman who turned him in in the first place, and wants to adopt him.

However, despite all of this the Animal Control Shelter has taken the unethical stance that despite the fact that there are facilities and an adoptive care giver who would like to take Winkie in and spare his life, that they would instead rather just kill the poor cat on March 3. This is unethical because there is NO REASON that this animal should have to be killed. It is not an overcrowding issue, because the cat has people who want to immediately take him in. It is not an aggression issue, because if there was an aggression issue the Companion Animal Rescue Alliance has already said they will work to rehabilitate him if it should turn out that he is, indeed, aggressive.

I find it extremely disturbing that the Animal Control Shelter in Howard County would rather kill an animal than relinquish it to a facility and adoptive caregiver who can and will give it a chance at life, a stable and good home, etc. This is beyond unethical. This is beyond inhumane. It borders on sadistic. There is no reason to kill this cat, as it stands.

Please, look into this matter thoroughly and do the right thing, the humane thing, the ethical thing. Order the Animal Control Shelter of Howard County to hand Winkie over to the Companion Animal Rescue Alliance so that he may have a chance at life. He might just be a cat, but his life matters, too. There is no reason he should have to die, so please don't let him be killed for no reason.

Thank you,

Traci Miller

My response letter to Senator Lager over Prop B

Senator Lager,
I thank you for your response to me about Proposition B. I have received letters from you about my concerns in both postal and electronic mail forms.

However, I still have grave concerns over Proposition B and the way it is being handled. While I am aware that you have an obligation to the 12th District and the counties and people therein, you also have a duty to Missouri as a whole and the Missouri people as a whole. Whom, as a whole, passed Proposition B. To repeal or drastically alter Proposition B would be trampling on the rights of the voters as a whole, and the will of the people of Missouri as a whole.

I am very glad that you do not want to repeal Proposition B, however I have very real and urgent concerns about the possible changes on the table for it. You say that you are all for reasonable changes, and if a compromise is what is necessary right now then I am also all for reasonable changes. The problem is, these changes proposed are not reasonable. They effectively render Proposition B impotent and change nothing. That is the same as repealing it.

I would like to draw your attention to these web pages which I think accurately sum up a good concern over why these changes are not reasonable. I have personally looked at the bills myself, and I agree that the information in these web pages is accurate, not hyperbole.

http://puppies.burningbird.net/comparing-old-laws-new

http://puppies.burningbird.net/article/reality-hb-131

http://puppies.burningbird.net/article/reality-sb-113

Also, I would like to draw your attention to Rep. Jason Smith, who has a very personal interest in Proposition B's repeal or change. During the House meetings on Proposition B, he has been proven to be very aggressive toward anyone who is supportive of Prop B. This man is not part of the committee holdings group, but he has attended as an Ex-officio, because he is Majority Whip. If he were simply passionate about procedure, perhaps this might be overlooked a bit. However, the problem is that that is not what it is about. For him, this is personal and he should not have been allowed to be there in this fashion.

His mother, Mary Ann Smith, is part of the HSUS's report called Missouri's Dirty Dozen. And when I say she's part of the report, I mean she gets placed as number 6 on the Dirty Dozen list. http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/pets/puppy_mills/report_on_mos_dirty_dozen.pdf

http://midwestdemocracyproject.org/blogs/entries/rep-jason-smith-and-his-mom-prop-b-personal/ This link provides further information about Smith and his personal grudge against Prop B. I cannot blame him for wanting to stand up for his mother, however I think his personal interest is mucking things up and he should not be there in the capacity that he is.

He is also a member of the House Ethics Committee, so he should know this better than anyone. Yet, he decided to abuse his abilities and power in order to do this.

Even Fox News has something to say about Rep. Jason Smith's personal interests in Prop B

http://www.fox2now.com/news/ktvi-fox-files-prop-b-foe-may-have-conflict-of-interest-20110222,0,3145505.story

http://www.fox2now.com/videobeta/?watchId=a08dd93b-5921-48db-a286-4a7ad2221d53

If you are sincere about wanting a reasonable compromise between the people of the 12th District and Missouri as a whole on Proposition B, by making reasonable changes, please...look into what I've said here, look at the links. Read the articles. Watch the videos. They aren't long, none of them. They are all straight forward. They all get the point across.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to compromise, but the offered changes, all of them regardless of the bill they are found in, are unreasonable and are not compromises at all.

I love WebMD

Apparently, people think its weird for female dogs to hump, and that if they do they must be lesbian or something (not that that would be bad). According to WebMD, though, humping is normal for both sexes. Males tend to do it more often than females, but both sexes do it. And it doesn't always have a thing to do with what they're humping against, since even furniture will do sometimes.

Watching your dog get personal with the new sofa may make you cringe, but it's not abnormal. Many dogs discover that humping feels good or relieves stress, so they keep at it. Both males and females are known to indulge in this behavior, though males do it more often. Reid says it's fine to look the other way in most cases. "But if they're humping family members or guests who come to the house, behavior modification is in order." (via WebMD ) It should be #5.

Although, dogs can still be bisexual or homosexual. Humping, however, is not a sign indicative of either one, if its just simply normal behavior in the way that it is described above. There are many, many, many species of animals, dogs included, that exhibit homosexual or bisexual tendencies and animals just simply don't care. :p So, apparently, Nature isn't very homophobic. The only homophobic animals seem to be humans.


However, my point is that its not a big deal in the animal kingdom to be homosexual or bisexual. Or to be straight. Humans are the only animals with actual hang-ups over this.

Here's the shocking new truism: In the wilds of nature, to not have some level of homosexual/bisexual behavior in a given species is turning out to be the exception, not the rule.

This is a little snippet from a 2009 article I found on CommonDreams.org, which they took from the San Francisco Chronicle. It can be found here.


So, this sort of behavior is normal in the animal kingdom. Humans are animals. It stands to reason that humans, like other apes, are also subject to the same sexualities found in 1500 other species of animals. And, even if you don't believe humans descended from apes, it still has merit. Why? Well, because most Christians whom I talk to (even those in my own family), say that homosexuality is unnatural in animals, too, and that it isn't what nature or God intended. Well,perhaps the Bible (and probably other holy texts from other religions) does have something to say against humans having homosexual relations (although Jesus never mentioned it once). But, obviously neither nature nor God had a problem with animals getting freaky with the same sex or multiple partners.


Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not a Christian. But, I notice that the majority of people I hear speaking out against LGBTs and their rights and equality tend to be Christians (or at least they have the loudest mouths). So, that's why I bothered with this post at all. That, and I just thought this information was interesting.

MO's Prop B Under Attack

I'm so sick of the lies going around Missouri right now about Proposition B. Most people who advocate repeal (talking citizens here) want it done for reasons that have nothing to do with the bill. They've been lied to and they perpetuate the misinformation. Obviously, there are special interests at work, of course. No surprise there. Missouri is known as the puppy mill capital of the United States. Not to mention I think some people just don't know what a puppy mill is.

Missouri voters passed Prop B by 52%. Unfortunately, the Republicans in my state are working in favor of the puppy mills, by lying and saying that Prop B has something to do with livestock, farmers, food, and even saying that it would harm legitimate dog breeders (it won't).

What is a Puppy Mill?

• Breeding females are bred until they die, forced to have one litter after another littler after another litter
• Puppy mill breeders have upwards of 50 dogs at any one time, or
• Having 10 breeding females with the purpose of selling the puppies at any one time
• Dogs are kept in cages, often too small to turn around in
• They often do not have access to food OR water
• Few, if any, of the dogs ever receive vet care or vaccinations
• Many puppies bought from these breeders are sick, even with the deadly and highly contagious Parvovirus

What Prop B Does for Dogs

• Only applies to domesticated dogs or mixed breeds over the age of six months that meet Puppy Mill standards as mentioned above
• Mandates sufficient food & clean water for all dogs
• Mandates necessary veterinary care as deemed acceptable by American Veterinary Medical Association
• Mandates sufficient housing for dogs, including shelter from elements
• Mandates sufficient space to turn & stretch freely, lie down, & fully extend his/her limbs
• Mandates regular exercise
• Mandates adequate rest between breeding cycles
• Makes puppy mill cruelty a class C misdemeanor unless
• The defendant has plead or been found guilty of violating the bill on a separate occasion, making it a class A misdemeanor

Prop B DOES NOT

• Put numerical limits on how many dogs anyone can own when not using them for breeding & profit
• Apply to any retail pet store
• Apply to animal shelters
• Apply to hobby or show breeders who have more than 10 breeding female dogs
• Apply to dog trainers who don’t breed & sell dogs for use as pets
• Limit hunting
• Limit the breeding, raising, or selling of hunting dogs
• Apply to farms
• Apply to livestock of farms
• Apply to animals other than dogs

The proposed changes to Prop B can be found here. The changes more or less gut the thing, and make it impotent. It also changes unnecessary things for no apparent reason. I can't imagine why they decided to change the definition of "pet" (for purposes of the bill) from "species of the domestic dog, Canis lupus familiaris, or resultant hybrids" to instead say simply, "domesticated animal."

What the Proposed Changes to Prop B Mean for Dogs

• Changes the definition of "pet" for the purposes of the bill from only referring to dogs so that it will instead refer to ALL domesticated animals
• Reduces the period of rest a female dog will have between litters, from no more than 2 litters per 18 months to no more than 2 litters per 12 months, thus creating more harm to the dogs
• Removes the option of a site visit to the facility for veterinary care
• Removes the regulations for what constitutes a violation of the law
• Removes restrictions on the amount of dogs, in all, you are allowed to have for breeding and selling purposes.
• Removes majority of the regulations on dog nutrition and access to food & water

In short, the changes gut the bill and render it impotent. Those of us in Missouri who realize what a great bill this is and don't want it messed with are fully aware, however, of what the Republicans in our state are really doing. They're giving us a choice on which way we want the bill rendered useless. The choices are quite simple; Repeal it, gut it, or just don't fund it. But, the idea of actually letting it stand and do what it was enacted to do? That's out of the question.

Missouri, like I said before, is known as the Puppy Mill Capital of the United States. Prop B is the first step toward changing that title. Do our lawmakers really want Missouri to continue being known for animal cruelty? Surely, Missouri can carry on a better legacy than that!

Politics Gone Wild

Its normal in any country for the politicians and other leadership to be unable to satisfy all of the people all of the time. That's something that can't be got away from. And that means there will always be civil and/or political unrest of some sort. That's normal. That's healthy for a nation.

However, what isn't healthy for a nation is the way that our politicians and our citizens, especially (at the moment) on the Right Wing, are behaving. Violent (or violently tinged) rhetoric, and not-so-subtle violent imagery is not a good idea. At all. And, I'm not saying the Left Wing is at all innocent. Throughout history we can see where the Left has also had their moments they shouldn't be proud of. One example is the 70s, when people (mostly from the Left) were staging violent riots and overturning cars. One doesn't have to go back that far, but its a prominent example and its one that brings up images in a person's mind even if they didn't live during that time. It just so happens that today, right now, it is the Right who is doing it. That doesn't mean that in a few years it won't be the Left again.

But, this isn't about who is right or wrong. We shouldn't be playing the blame-game. Its just getting people on the defensive. Everybody, party-regardless, needs to stop and check themselves. From the highest-ranked politicians to the lowest class of citizens. We need to stop and think before we speak. We need to stop and think before we add an image to our website or picket sign or whatever it is we're adding images to.

Obviously nobody has told any unstable people to go out and commit murder. Or, if they did, they were probably not speaking literally (I'm looking at you, Bill O'Reilly). Nobody who is sane wants to really incite murder and mayhem. And nobody can know all of the time what is going to set off an unstable person and prompt them to commit murder.

But...that doesn't mean that the Right is innocent this time. I think that there was an obvious disregard for common sense on the part of a lot of politicians, citizens, and organizations that are Right Wing. This needs to stop. I'm not even going to give examples. They're obvious. Everyone knows what they are, what they were, and everyone will know in the future what they are when people use them again. This is not okay. This is something that is obviously going to set off some nutjob.

The tragedy in Tuscon is one that was unable to be stopped. Since 2008, there have been many attempts that have been in the news that have been caught in time and stopped, tragedy avoided. But, each time something set them off, and it was usually something obvious. But, it goes ignored because people on the Right get defensive (as people on the Left would, too, if things were turned around).

We need to stop getting defensive. We need to stop trying to justify or explain it away. We need to stop, we need to look, we need to admit (even if reluctantly) that yes...this is something that could have been avoided this time. Or at least, for these reasons. Maybe that guy, or those others in the past since 2008, would have still been set off in another way. That's entirely possible. But, we will never know, will we? Because, there was irresponsibility all around.

One thing that we had to learn growing up was taking responsibility not JUST for our actions, but also for our words. Our words can cause harm just as much as our actions can. That doesn't mean this man, or those who were stopped in the past, are innocent and should be given some sort of pass. Definitely not. Unstable or not, they committed or were on their way to commit, a terrible crime. They should be locked away forever and have the key thrown away. But, we also must take responsibility for inciting the violence in the first place, as well.

It doesn't matter who started it, it doesn't matter who finished it. It doesn't matter who committed the violence, or who just spoke the words. It needs to stop. And it needs to stop immediately. Right now. Yesterday, even. Last week. It needs to stop. There is no excuse.

And, its no secret that I'm a Liberal. But, to be quite honest, if it was my own side doing it today I would be saying the same thing about them, to them. I would be ashamed of my political base and the actions and words that they are taking. I would not become less Liberal for it, but I would definitely call out my own side and say, "This is ridiculous and enough is enough. Calm down, take a chill pill, and act your age."

End Rant.

ACORN has been vindicated

I'm so glad that ACORN has finally been vindicated. I'm sick about hearing of those videos that O'Keefe made and distributed. They were highly edited and doctored. There never should've been any news stations covering those videos as if they were accurate.

For those of you who don't know, The ACORN undercover videos controversy started in September 2009 when Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe published selectively edited hidden-camera recordings in which Giles posed as a prostitute and O'Keefe claimed to be her boyfriend in order to elicit damaging responses from employees of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).*

You can make anything sound or look like anything that you want it to if you edit it enough.

I'm glad that ACORN's federal funding has been restored and that the judge ruled it unconstitutional for it to be taken away.

Maybe, now this nonsense will stop or at least move on to a new topic. Its not okay to make up your own evidence that something is going on just because you can't find any real evidence to support your theory.

This O'Keefe guy is a real snake and he deserves every disciplinary legal action that comes his way. Probably more than that. He can't find evidence to support his theories about certain politicians and organizations, so he just makes it up instead.

Either way, this should be a lesson to everybody. Be careful what you watch. Its entirely possible that whoever put it out there has an ulterior motive that is anything but pure.

Of course, this information won't be good for everybody. There are always going to be people who refuse to believe that ACORN is dirty no matter what kind of evidence to the contrary comes their way. But, I'm more inclined to believe the actual evidence, not the made-up evidence.

To read the entire article this screen capture came from, click here.

*This sentence was copy and pasted from the Wikipedia page on James O'Keefe, because I think they did a phenomenal job of telling what happened.