damnum absque injuria

July 24, 2009

Babe, 200?-2009

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 11:24 pm

I’m sorry to say that our efforts to save Babe have ultimately proved fruitless. While we did locate a dog-friendly attorney who was able to persuade the court to stay her execution while he made the case for being allowed to adopt her and place her in a sanctuary he lined up, in the end, that wasn’t good enough. It seems that a court order against North Las Vegas Animal Control is just as effective as a restraining order against an abusive ex. Which, I’m sorry to say, is not that effective.

On a similar note, R.I.P., Sunny.

January 21, 2009

Any Dog-Friendly Attorneys in Nevada?

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 10:37 pm

Long-time readers may remember Babe, a Sharpei mix we helped place in California almost five years ago.


Babe is in trouble now and needs help right away. If you can suggest any animal-friendly lawyer, please comment or email (xrlq at xrlq dot com) ASAP.

September 12, 2008

Pit Bulls

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 7:38 am

In a post titled “What’s Wrong With a Pit Bull,” by Christine Bowman tries to be clever in attacking Sarah “Pit Bull” Palin by comparing her to literal pit bulls. In so doing, she spewed every lie in the book about the breed itself, just to get at a Republican.

Update 9/11/08: It appears based on comments received that some readers have misconstrued my purpose in posting this article. I chose Sarah Palin’s pit bull metaphor as a means of criticizing her, as well as other GOP leaders. I had no desire to criticize pit bulls themselves. — CB

Now what on earth could have possibly given readers that impression?

Sarah Palin likes to describe herself as a pit bull. She rolled out the “pit bull in lipstick” idea in her first address to the American people, and she uses the image in her everyday stump speech.

“What’s the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull?” she asked.


The analogy is actually a good one.

Indeed it is. Pit bulls are tenacious, and loyal to a fault. Which of course was the point Palin was making, so having confirmed as much, you can end your article here, Sweetie.

Just think about it. What images and feelings do the words “pit bull” conjure up? (… with apologies to all sweet-spirited canines)

Here you see Democrat thinking at its worst: forget verifiable facts: “images and feelings” are all that matters. If you have bad thoughts about Republicans and pit bulls, well, that must mean that they are bad, right?

* A pit bull is a programmed fighter. Its handlers throw it into the ring, and it attacks.

The other pit bull, sure. That’s what Vice Presidential candidates are supposed to do in an election season. So far, Sarah the Pit Bull seems to have done a pretty good job of that, certainly better than the Yorkshire terrier they’ve got yipping for the other side.

* A pit bull fights indiscriminately. A pit bull mauls small children, innocent neighbors. It even bites the hand that feeds it.

* A pit bull is dangerous.

Some are, sure. Some dogs of every breed are.

* A pit bull can’t be trusted.

A Democrat can’t be trusted, that’s for sure, but since when can’t a good dog be? Most dogs, pit bulls included, are WYSIWYG.

* A pit bull is mean.

Nope, no desire to criticize pit bulls there. Sweetie sez so in an update!

* A pit bull is tenacious. It never lets go.

OK, so after smearing innocent dogs just to get at an innocent Republican, you finally found the point! Congratulations, Sweetie, you can go home now. Oh wait, there’s more…

Now, we can’t say necessarily that Sarah Palin is a pit bull. It is Palin herself who is saying that.

What? You mean that when Sarah Palin gave that speech comparing herself and her fellow hockey moms to pit bulls, that was actually Palin herself doing the talking? Wow, that’s, like, a real freaky coincidence, like.

We do think it’s fair to point out that the Republican National Party — the party running Palin as their vice presidential candidate — values a dangerous, untrustworthy attack dog.

I suppose Sweetie does have a point there. After all, where would the RNC and the dextrosphere have been for the last few months if it weren’t for Andrew Sullivan, Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews? To their credit, however, none of these three have smeared pit bulls by comparing these beautiful dogs to themselves.

On August 29, 2008, the GOP made a calculated judgment. They decided they needed an attack dog as a counter-balance to the top of their ticket.

Yeah, we all know that John McCain chose Sarah Palin on the very same day he announced her nomination. Gotta hand it to both of them, those were two hells of impromptu speeches they delivered on the very same day McCain made a calculated judgment to choose a Republican as his running mate.

John McCain was trying to run for president as an honorable man, but it just wasn’t looking like a winning strategy. He wasn’t catching on. So the party elders, the K Street campaign managers, and the Karl Roves who shape GOP campaigns and GOP policy put their heads together. Enter Sarah Palin.

Hate to burst your bubble, Sweetie, but there’s nothing dishonorable about appointing a woman, or a person of either sex who is likely to appeal to members of your own party.

But is a pit bull good for America? Haven’t we Americans had our fill of pit bulls?

Xrlq 2.0 hasn’t.

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were unmistakable pit bulls. For better or worse, they were fierce, single-minded, and unwavering. Pit bull warriors, pit bull diplomats, pit bull economists.

Where did they lead America? Was the war they and John McCain believed in the right one?

You know, I was asking myself that very same question on September 11, 2003, when two years had passed since the infamous 9/11 attacks, and the next attack was due any day now. I asked myself the same question again on September 11, 2004, and on September 11, 2005, etc.

And how did their energy plan work out for the country? Cheney sure was tenacious in protecting his secret energy task force, but that wasn’t a case of putting “Country First,” was it?

Right, it wasn’t the Democrats who keep us from drilling offshore, in ANWR and the shale, it was those eeeeevil Republican pit bulls in Washington scheming to keep oil prices high, while sending Karl Rove out to secretly underinflate everyone’s tires and lull them into believing they won’t need a tune-up for at least 100,000 miles or so.

We now know the GOP pit bulls still in power bit off more war than they could possibly chew. They leapt into an attack on Iraq without a reasonable long-term plan or exit strategy. They ripped their teeth into the wrong enemy, and they have spilled way too much human blood.

While the Democrat Yorkies rushed into the same war, only to yelp and submit at the first nip, even if that meant leaving newly liberated Iraq to descend into civil war, followed by a terror state rivaling what existed there before.

Snarling and snapping, they created more enemies than America ever had back in 2001.

Maybe, but they seem to have done a pretty good job of keeping the one enemy at bay that mattered most in 2001.

Worst of all they turned their tail to the biggest threat in the fighting pit.

Right, ‘cuz if there’s one thing a pit bull is well-known for, it’s its tendency to turn tail and run. That’s why we need Democrat Yorkies in Washington to replace those mean ol’ Republican pit bulls.

Think about it.

I’d like to, but frankly, but with every sentence I read of this article, I feel my own IQ slip 3 or 4 points. I’d rather make it through this exercise without becoming a complete retard, so I think I’ll take a pass on actually thinking about it further.

And what do Americans really think of pit bulls? In 16 of these United States of America we have enacted or drafted laws to restrict and control pit bulls: in Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky, Washington, Utah, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, Colorado, Maryland, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Kansas.

Colorado drafted a law to protect pit bulls from bigots like Bowman. It didn’t work because only Denver was passing such idiotic ordinances anyway, and as a home rule city they can ignore state law pretty much whenever they want. But leave it to a Democrat to cite the fact that other people have a bad perception about someone or something as though it were evidence that that someone or something is bad (and then to have the audacity to update the piece and deny any intent to insult the same).

That list includes a lot of states that might be up for grabs in this 2008 presidential election.

Indeed it does. Here’s hoping that of the states Bowman actually got right (as opposed to Colorado, the only one I bothered to check), voters understand that just because they may vote against allowing their next door neighbors to personally own pit bulls or nuclear weapons, that doesn’t mean we as a nation shouldn’t have either.

So what will it be? The GOP pit bulls, or a Democrat who thinks like a diplomat?

A better question is, would we rather have a Republican who barks at our enemies to keep them at bay, or a Democrat who barks at us? Fortunately or unfortunately, I can’t think of a dog breed that warrants a comparison to “malaise” Democrats, so rather than smearing innocent dogs I’ll skip the analogy.

Voters can say no to the GOP pit bulls here and now.

Indeed, we can vote out the tenacious fighters and replace them with wimps who cut and run at the first sign of trouble. The question is, why on earth would we want to?

No more pit bull campaigning.

Meaning: no more criticizing The One. The other side’s pit bulls are free to attack as often as they like.

No pit bull foreign policy.

Meaning: no more tenacious fighters, let’s bring in the new ones who are all bark and no bite.

Democrats. Wrong on literal pit bulls, wrong on figurative ones.

November 13, 2007

Here We Go Again

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 11:24 pm

Much as I despised Cali, their general statewide ban on breed bans was a blessing, which I also enjoyed in Virginia. Here in NC, no such blessing, and my presumptive1 new home county, Forsyth, is reportedly “studying” the issue. Lovely.

1It’s my presumptive home because I haven’t bought a new place yet, but did recently accepted a full-time position in Winston-Salem, the only city cool enough to have three four cigarette brands2 named after it.

2Bonus points for the first reader who can name all three.

UPDATE: The intended third brand for the cool city was Kool. A better one, which McGehee and CTG proposed in comments, is Camel.

October 21, 2007

Disposable Pets

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 11:54 am

One more reason to hate Hillary: even Socks the Cat was a prop. If you like people who get pets to make themselves look warm and fuzzy, then ditch them when the need to look warm and fuzzy subsides, Hillary’s your girl.

UPDATE: More here via the guy who doesn’t really blend puppies, reminding us that Buddy, the other former first pet, didn’t fare so well after President Clinton and her husband left office, either.

July 31, 2007

Michael Vick Discovers Puppy Love

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 8:50 pm

January 18, 2007

Daisy Needs Help

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 12:13 am

Longtime readers may remember Daisy. In late 2002 and early 2003, Daisy was a temporary (unless you ask Mrs. X, in which case the answer is “permanent”) resident of Casa Xrlq in Rancho Santa Margarita. A friend of ours had found her in a park and bought her from a homeless man who had apparently been feeding her trash, resulting in a nasty stomach infection that nearly killed her. We nursed her back to health, and for a while (to me, as I didn’t want a third dog – to Mrs. X it was going to be permanent) she was our third dog:

Unfortunately, Daisy, who is the white lab/whippet mix on the right, didn’t get along too well with Molly the fawn pit bull on the left. She also didn’t play so well with our cats, but was extremely friendly toward people. At heart, she’s more of a loner. Not when it comes to people – she absolutely loves people – just other pets. She’s the perfect single pet.

We put her up for adoption in January, 2003, and placed her with a local (RSM) couple about a month later. The couple liked her so much they even sent us a pic of their own:

Three months later, the couple later learned the hard way what they should have learned the easy way before: dogs aren’t allowed in their complex. So they returned her, and we put her up for adoption again, and placed her again. All’s well that ends well. Right?

Wrong. Last week I got a call from a lady at the Orange County, CA animal shelter, informing that Daisy’s microchip was still in our name, and that Daisy had been surrendered by her owners for euthanasia because she had become unstable and bitten someone without provocation. That didn’t sound at all like the Daisy we knew, so I prodded her for details of the incident, only to learn that by “surrender” they meant “abandoned,” by “owners” she meant “some idiot vet tech who didn’t own or want her after the original owners had abandoned her at the vet’s office,” by “unstable” she had meant “scared shitless” and/or “didn’t immediately acclimate to a strange house,” by “someone” she had meant “that idiot vet tech’s dog,” and by “without provocation” she had meant “without the idiot vet tech even trying to introduce the dogs properly.” By all accounts she has been very friendly at the pound ever since, as she always was. But until and unless we can find some place to house her, she’s on death row and time is running out.

In an abundance of caution, I do not recommend Daisy for families that have cats and dogs already. I absolutely recommend her for families who are ready for one dog who has been through a lot of crap, will know immediately that her life got better, and will reward you in spades. If you are that person, know that person, or if you think you might be interested in meeting Daisy and possibly fostering her for a while, please let me know ASAP. If you can’t take her but are willing to help with the costs of boarding her until we find someone who can, please consider donating, either by PayPal (email xrlq at xrlq dot com) or, if you prefer, by contacting the boarding facility directly once we’ve determined who that will be.

November 22, 2005

Sam He Was

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 6:33 pm

The world’s fugliest dog has died at the ripe old age of almost-15.

Rest in peace, Sam.

November 16, 2005

Land of the Unfree, Home of the Cowardly

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 12:39 pm

On the heels of passing its doubly illegal handgun ban, Frisco wasted no time taking advantage of S.B. 861, the new law which will allow doggie racism effective January 1. Coming next: a new ordinance declaring Wiccan the official religion of Frisco, and another redefining “probable cause” to authorize warrantless searches of the homes of anyone who has publicly expressed opposition to gun control, breed control, or any other law banning possession of anything Frisco has taken it upon itself to ban. Tom McClintock had some choice words for this turkey:

Proponents of this measure have said this is a matter of local control. The reality is that local officials can be just as despotic as state officials and Senate Bill 861, at its core, is a despotic bill.

There are two types of laws. One type of law holds individuals accountable for their own actions. In such a society, the irresponsible, reckless one percent who endanger others are held accountable for those actions, and we have laws that punish them. They hold the individual accountable for his actions, they punish the reckless people and they leave the other 99 percent of law-abiding individuals alone.

The second type of law treats all people as if they were irresponsible and Senate Bill 861 would create such a law. These are the kind of laws that destroy freedom and create societies of subjects rather than citizens.

I ask you to consider what direction we are taking society when we begin passing laws that treat all individuals as if they were all irresponsible. That’s what this bill does. It is an insult to California’s law-abiding citizens and is an affront to a free society.

Attorney Dawn Capp is leading the charge for a referendum to overturn S.B. 861. Time is of the essence; we only have until Tuesday, January 3. You can download the petition here.

October 1, 2005

Saving Pets, and Their Owners

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 9:12 pm

Via Tammy Bruce, H.R. 3858 would require state and local authorities to include pets and service animals in their disaster evacuation plans. The bill reads in its entirety:


This Act may be cited as the ‘Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act of 2005’.


Section 613 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5196b) is amended–

(1) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h); and

(2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following:

‘(g) Standards for State and Local Emergency Preparedness Operational Plans- In approving standards for State and local emergency preparedness operational plans pursuant to subsection (b)(3), the Director shall ensure that such plans take into account the needs of individuals with household pets and service animals following a major disaster or emergency.’.

This one’s a no-brainer. Call your Congresscritter and tell him to support it.

UPDATE: All this comes not a minute too soon.

UPDATE x2: For those would-be Cruella de Villes who can’t bear the thought of one taxpayer dime going to pay for anyone’s pet or service dog, bear in mind that 42 U.S.C. § 5196b is a federal funding statute, not a direct mandate. If Louisiana wants to retain its policy of screwing pet owners, and soaking the taxpayers twice on service dogs that will need to be replaced, they can still do it; they just won’t be able to ask the rest of the country to help pay for it.


Powered by WordPress. Stock photography by Matthew J. Stinson. Design by OFJ.