To the mainstream media I only have one thing to say, get your priorities straight!

Civil unrest in Venezuela and the Ukraine, mass animal culls, major pedophile ring busts. All of these things have taken place over the past few weeks and all anyone is talking about is who won gold at the Olympics. Have we become such a jaded society that we simply do not care about what happens to others? Are the Olympics really more important to us than people dying on the streets of their own home towns at the hands of those who are supposed to serve and protect? Are they really more important than the fact that more pedophiles have been taken off the streets? Somehow I think not, but the main stream media sees things differently.

How does main stream media miss these things? They don’t, they just have a very screwed up sense of what is and is not news. Sure the whole world is wondering what is happening is Sochi, but how does sports reporting trump news of civil unrest in Venezuela? How is a bob sled race more important than people being persecuted for standing up for their rights? Again, it isn’t, but the mainstream media only covers what sells newspapers, and apparently Venezuelan unrest is not on the menu.

How does the world turn a blind eye to the violence taking place on our planet? In part the media is responsible. What they report on determines what people are talking about. It shouldn’t be that way, but society has come to rely on main stream media as a window on the world. To my way of thinking, someone needs to clean that window because we are not seeing the whole picture through it.

The media has lost their sense of priority. They are more worried about reporting on upstart city mayors and bad boy pop stars than they are about telling us what is really going on with the world today. The Rob Fords and the Justin Biebers of the world are the top of the news while civil unrest and government atrocities are ignored. We have become a generation that simply does not care what happens on the other side of the world as long as our episode of “The Walking Dead” still airs. Sad but true.

To the mainstream media I only have one thing to say, get your priorities straight!



The animal you want to adopt deserves nothing less than the best home we can find for him, and although you think that home should be yours without question, you are going to have to prove yourself worthy.

new_pet_adoptionOkay so today while perusing my twitter feed I noticed a tweet that got my blood boiling! Someone said that animal adoption is too complicated, there is too much paperwork and too many hoops to jump through.

Now more than likely this idiot is someone who has tried to adopt an animal and failed because they did not meet the adoption requirements, or someone who is just altogether ignorant of the rescue and adoption process. Never the less I wanted to refute their “arguments” and explain to you all why animal adoption is so “complicated.”

In order to do so we must go back to initial rescue and follow it through to the end. Perhaps then you will understand that although the animal adoption process seems complicated, it is the ONLY responsible way to rehome an abused or abandoned animal.

A rescue group finds or is brought a dog. The dog has been abused by it’s previous owner and is wary of humans. The dog is assessed by the rescue group and it is determined that he will need approximately six months of rehab training before he can be found a new home. He is placed in a foster home with people who specialize in retraining abused and abandoned dogs, and his retraining begins.

applicationSix months goes by and the dog is now ready to find a new home. The rescue agency puts him up for adoption and encourages people to “apply” to adopt him. Here we have the first of the adoption paperwork, the application.

A few days go by and a volunteer begins contacting those who have applied to adopt the dog. It is that volunteers job to set up dates and times for home inspections.

House Hunting


After all someone has to make sure your home is a safe place for a dog to live. Once home inspections are set up a volunteer goes to each home and inspects it. They are trying to determine which home would be the safest for their rescue, after all we are not talking about a pair of old shoes here are we? Some applicants will be eliminated after this step. Here we have the second bit of paperwork, the home inspection survey.

talking-on-the-phone-t11676Once home inspections are done the volunteers move on to references. Each reference given by a prospective adopter is contacted and asked about whether or not their friend who has used them for a reference is animal owner material. Notes will be taken from the discussions with each reference. Some applicants will be eliminated after this step. Here we have our third bit of paperwork, the reference check.

downloadFrom there we move on to the veterinary check. Any prospective adopter who already has an animal in their home will be asked to provide a vet reference. That vet will then be called and questioned as to the health and current vetting of the animal already in the home. They are looking to make sure that this person is willing and able to provide quality vet care to the new adoptee. Some applicants will be eliminated after this step. Here we have our fourth bit of paperwork, the vet reference.

By now we probably only have one or two adopters who have not been eliminated, it is time to choose who the pet will go home with. Some families are more suited to a dog’s energy than others so now it is a matter of deciding which remaining home is best for the animal. For example you are not going to place the ten year old sedate poodle in a home with several small children, nor are you going to place the rambunctious 2 year old collie cross in a home with retirees. The best home is chosen for the dog.

23854979Now we come to the fifth and final bit of paperwork, the adoption contract. This is a document that states that you (the adopter) have agreed to take this animal into your home and give it loving care for the rest of it’s natural life. It also states (in most cases) that should you ever find it impossible to care for the animal you have adopted it is to be returned to the adoption agency for proper rehoming.

Yes there is a lot of paperwork, but there is a very good reason for that. We are not after all selling old shoes at a garage sale here, we are handing over a living breathing being that we have saved once from the brink of death. You had better believe we are going to do everything in our power to see that this animal NEVER returns to a life of abuse. That means that if you want to adopt a dog you are damned well going to prove yourself worthy.

Why do people have such a hard time with this? If they were applying to adopt a baby the process would be even more invasive, but no one complains about that. Maybe that is because they understand that giving a baby up for adoption is a very serious thing and one has to be sure it is going to the right adoptive home..

So why is it people complain about the animal adoption process? It is very simple really, people do not see animals as anything more than objects to be owned, and therein lies the problem. People expect to be able to walk into a shelter or rescue group and say “I’ll take that one.” as if they were picking out a pair of shoes or a dress to wear to an event. Problem is rescue doesn’t work that way.

Do you honestly think that when you have put months worth of work and love into rehabilitating an animal you are just going to hand it to the first person who comes along and says “I want that?” There have to be some checks and balances people! We have to be sure that we are handing over that animal to someone who values it’s life, and will treat it as a family member. We don’t take chances, we don’t skip steps in the adoption process because “it’s too complicated” for the adopter.

We believe that if you are truly serious about adoption you will jump through those hoops and prove yourself worthy without complaint because you know that the process is in place to protect the animal not make things convenient for the adopter.

So the next time you think “the animal adoption process is ridiculously complicated” remember this. The animal you want to adopt deserves nothing less than the best home we can find for him, and although you think that home should be yours without question, you are going to have to prove yourself worthy.


When did we decide that murder is okay as long as you think you have a valid reason? It isn’t!

Today I struggled for something to write. I must have started two or three different blogs but nothing was speaking to me. Then I began to think about the fate of Marius the giraffe, and i knew that I had my topic of conversation.If you have not heard the story (maybe you’ve been hiding under a rock for the past week I don’t know) let me explain.

Marius was an eighteen month old giraffe who lived at the Copenhagen zoo. Marius was murdered last week as zoo visitors looked on. He was then butchered and fed to the zoo’s lions, all in front of the public. The reasoning behind Marius’ cold blooded murder? According to zoo officials he was “surplus to their business needs.” They did not want him breeding because he was supposedly inbred. So they ended his life and used him as a snack for their carnivorous captives.

They did not want him breeding! Okay I can understand that, but this in no way justifies killing him and butchering him for the entertainment of zoo visitors (children included.) What most people myself included do not understand was why Marius had to die. Surely there was a way to keep him alive but prevent him from breeding? Not according to officials at the Copenhagen zoo.

“Other alternatives, like administering contraceptives, can cause side effects like renal failure. And neutering the young giraffe would have diminished his quality of life, says Holst. “Our most important objective is to ensure that the animals have the best life they can for as long as they live, whether that’s 20 years or two years. Breeding and parenting are especially important behaviors for a giraffe’s well-being. We didn’t want to interfere with that.”

What of the zoos around the world that offered to take the young giraffe? Are we meant to believe that Marius was a threat to breeding at every zoo on the planet? While breeding him with the Copenhagen zoo’s females might have been a bad move can these officials honestly expect us to believe that it would be dangerous for Matius to be allowed to breed with ANY other captive giraffe on the planet? Seems a little far fetched to me.

What of the zoo officials who would consider no other fate for Marius? The ones who insisted the only solution was death? Are they in their right minds, or are they just too tunnel visioned to be able to see other possible solutions? According to news reports this is not the first animal the zoo has slaughtered and fed to it’s carnivorous population. Nor is it the first time an animal has been slaughtered and butchered in front of zoo patrons.

The one thing besides the death of an innocent animal that bothers me in all of this, is the fact that zoo officials seemed to think that exposing children to the slaughter and butchering of an animal is “educational.” Tell me something, on what planet do we see murder as a spectator sport? When did we start becoming immune to violence? When did we decide that murder is okay as long as you think you have a valid reason? It isn’t!

Of course zoo officials in Copenhagen don’t see the killing of Marius the giraffe as murderous, they see it as controlling their assets. To them Marius was never a living breathing being he was an asset that was “surplus to their business needs.” A thing, that when unneeded was disposed of in the most final of all ways, he was killed and fed to other creatures.

Hmmm, wonder what the Copenhagen zoo is planning on doing with that zookeeper when he has outlived his usefulness? Jus’ sayin’.


Suddenly I’d rather take the bus!

Today while waiting for my daughter to get out of work, I sat in a parking lot and watched a man who must of been in his early eighties back out of a parking space. He did so without first checking to see if the way was clear, and narrowly missed hitting a pedestrian walking behind his SUV and another driver looking for a parking space.

I looked into his eyes as he drove past me and he looked rather lost, and not quite in tune with the world around him. I remember having the thought that he could easily be one of those old men you hear about who kill themselves while going the wrong way on a major highway, talking on their cell phones to their equally old, equally vague spouses about how they can’t understand why everyone is going the wrong way down the highway.

I thought about how scary that is, the thought that at any moment a not quite all there old person can have a car accident that takes their life and/or the life of another. That thinking of course led me to the question, are we really doing all we can to make sure that the elderly can safely operate a motor vehicle before we continue to allow them to do so? Which of course brings us to the question, “how old is “too old” to drive a car?

We as a society have a lot of freedom as long as we follow the rules set out for us. We have always given drivers of age the freedom to get behind the wheel, but we do check up on them before blindly renewing their license after they reach a certain age. In Ontario that age is 80. After that age licenses must be renewed every two years and there are hoops to jump through.

The government has a website giving tips to drivers 80+. I find this laughable because I don’t know that many 80+ citizens that use a computer never mind the internet! Websites are clearly not the answer here!

After what I witnessed this morning in the parking lot and the questions it raised in my mind I of course did a little research on the subject, and came across an article in the Toronto Star from February of this year. I have quoted it here below:

In the wake of a Star series on drivers with cognitive impairment, Chiarelli predicted there will be a “tightening across the board” of the system that allows many seniors with dementia to drive unchecked.

Um…am I reading this right? “drivers with dementia” WTF???

If we have to draft new laws to prevent people from having the legal right to drive after being diagnosed with dementia there are some serious holes in the laws that exist, and we are definitely not doing enough to ensure those on the road are competent drivers!

A different Star article states:

The depth of Ontario’s challenge was underlined in a Star investigation by Moira Welsh and Julian Sher. Citing a Queen’s University study, they report that the number of drivers in this province with dementia is expected to double to almost 100,000 by 2028, up from an estimated 45,000 today.

Are you SERIOUS? 45,000 drivers with dementia randomly driving around the province behind the wheel of machines capable of some serious destruction and possible loss of life? That is so far beyond unacceptable I truly don’t know what to call it! It also seriously begs us to ask the question “why the hell are people with dementia being allowed to continue driving?”

The same article goes on to say:

Many of those drivers have difficulty making complex decisions due to their condition or the side-effects of medication, yet they remain behind the wheel. Doctors who are supposed to report anyone who is unfit to drive aren’t necessarily doing so, either out of concern for a patient’s quality of life or because they aren’t adequately trained to assess people’s driving abilities.

Whether or not a doctor is capable of assessing someone’s driving abilities should they not be required to report even mild cases of dementia in patients with valid drivers licenses? You would think that should be something of note, no?


The province doesn’t require mandatory road testing of drivers over 80, only that they pass a vision and written test every two years, as well as attending an education session. And unlike such provinces as Saskatchewan, Ontario doesn’t have a graduated licence system for those with gradually eroding skills, easing them toward staying off the road through restrictions such as a ban on night driving or on using major highways.

This statement begs the question “why has a graduated license system not been introduced in Ontario?” Apparently, it’s in the works. Of course with parliament prorogued there is no telling how long it will be before we can expect not to have to worry about those 45,000 drivers with dementia  behind the wheels of their potential killing machines.

Wow! Government seriously needs to start concentrating on the real threats to  health and safety and not the imagined media inflated petty BS being pushed by ego inflated glorified college grade reporters in main stream media!!

I mean geez! There are people out there driving around with unreported dementia! Yikes! Now I have to worry about bad drivers and drivers who may or may not remember how to drive or that they are driving at any given moment? Suddenly I’d rather take the bus!

We want to know what is going on in our world, but we can do without the editorial views of idiots please and thank you!

Today a friend came to me outraged because she had heard a mainstream reporter say that violence against animals could be attributed to the bad economic times. I must confess the very notion that anyone could blame violent acts against any living thing on the state of the economy incensed me as well! This is the message I received:

I just heard something that makes me want to scream. The news media actually blaming our poor economy for acts of violence against animals increasing. Where the hell is the logic in that. Violent people are to blame not the economy. That’s just an extremely poor and lame excuse to justify this behaviour in some twisted manner. People who commit these acts are already predisposed to violence, end of story.

I mean are you serious? Really? Blaming tendency toward violence on the state of economy is not only ridiculous it is extremely misleading. What’s more, it could actually be dangerous!

If the general public are lead to believe that economic chaos is a catalyst for violent behavior doesn’t it also stand to reason that the general public will expect a reduction in violent behaviors if the economy makes an upshift? Naturally one could safely assume so. Problem with that is violence has absolutely nothing to do with the state of the economy. If you wouldn’t brutally murder your pet dog or cat when the economy is good, a downturn in the economy is not going to suddenly turn you into a cold blooded killer. If you don’t beat your kids when your bank account is in the black you aren’t going to become suddenly abusive if you lose everything. As my friend says those who commit acts of violence are predisposed to violent behavior.

Why is it then that the media feels the need to explain away this uprising in violent behavior with such a lame excuse? The answer is simple really, telling the truth doesn’t make them money. God forbid we should tell readers or watchers of mainstream media that we have become such a ME ME ME society that no one respects life any longer. That won’t sell newspapers or make people watch your news show. We can’t blame those actually responsible, that would be media suicide! Instead they must find someone or something else to blame.

In this case this reporter is taking the situation which does exist, that of people giving up their family pets due to the downturn in the economy. They have then skewed what we know to be true into an explanation for why we are seeing an uprising of violence against animals. We are also seeing an uprising in violence against women and children, are they going to blame that on the economy too?

The danger here is that people will become complacent and begin ignoring acts of violence by telling themselves it will all end when the economy takes an upswing. Problem is the theory couldn’t be farther from the truth. There will be no miraculous disappearance of violent acts when the economy recovers simply because the economy is not the catalyst for rising violence.

Violence has existed for millennia, the strong have always used it as a means by which to control the weak. Barbaric behavior is not new to the human race. In fact we as a race have spent countless decades drafting laws and consequence to try to curb violent behavior. We find such acts intolerable and those who commit them to be sick and twisted members of society. Nothing can justify an act of violence, certainly not a downturn in the economy.

If you ask me (not that anyone did but i’ll tell you anyway) the mainstream media really needs to examine their priorities. We want to know what is going on in our world, but we can do without the editorial views of idiots please and thank you!