June 25, 2004

• Obviously, the place to start cutting the budget is with killing puppies and kittens. Is this a joke?
• Hasta La Vista, Kitty.
• I can imagine what his PR people are saying about this. It probably won't be that great for his image to kill puppies and kittens to save money. Good thing he's so charming (NYT Link): No one has ever accused Mr. Schwarzenegger, no matter what role he is in, of lacking self-confidence, and the governor himself knows that both his celebrity and his superhero screen image are at the core of his distinctive and so far successful political style. Asked to describe his governing philosophy seven months after toppling Gray Davis in California’s recall election, he said, “Crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of their women.” He stopped himself. “Wait a minute, that’s Conan,” he said. “I stepped out of character here for a second.” As a side note, the first thing I thought when I read that quote this morning was, "He wants to laminate our women?!"
• Jeez. Is he going to kick each one of them beforehand, too?
• Then he's going to steal candy from a baby.
• Way to go Arnie...! I see you're living up to the "Terminator" role ain't ya! Bah! This makes me so mad!
• Next we'll save on Medicare and Social Security by shooting every third elderly person in the head.
• So is there any room for discussion here or is the topic so kneejerk inflamatory that it's impossible? I think it's a good idea. 14 Million saved. Isn't that the kind of thing as tax payers we want? The kitties are going to kitty heaven anyway, why not save a buck and expidite the process?
• I hate to be on the other side of the fence here, but seriously, California has a huge budgeting problem and I'd like to see figures of how many animals really get adopted between that 4-6 day window. I think this must be one of those things were people just get mad because of the way things sound and not the way things are. As harsh as it sounds, if people want to get mad about this they really need to worry more about the lack of people coming in and adopting these animals. I don't see why Arnie should be at fault here for trying to cut corners but maybe I'm just one cynical bastard. And in that case I'll just go beat my dog some more to make myself feel better about it. kidding!
• Have a cat problem? Call this guy . I haven't thought about Gummo in years.
• With the information provided, it's a tough call. It seems like a good idea when you consider 600,000 dogs and cats are put to death anyway, but we don't know how many more would be put to death under the new rules. Even if we did know, it's a question of what taxpayers are willing to pay for, which could be influenced by many factors. The article also seems to imply an all or nothing approach. Shouldn't an animal that comes in with tags be held longer? I am exactly undecided on the issue. In any case, it doesn't matter how many animals are killed; they'll be back.
• Ac-centuate the positive! E-laminate the negative! Ir-radicate the kittens! Ir-radiate the puppies! Ex-terminate Mister In-Between!!! whatever.
• Humane Society Silicon Valley President's "State of the Animal Address" "Benninger said tackling pet overpopulation is the easy part of the problem. The real challenge, she said is changing people's perceptions about animals. 'You can educate people about spay/neutering their pets but you cannot make them love that pet in such a way that they treat it like a family member. Too many people still view animals as disposable creatures.'"
• Perhaps this is an impetus to get people to adopt those strays. It's like the government's plea to buy war bonds in the 40's, lest the Nazi death machine rise up to overtake the entire world. *People rush out and buy war bonds and adopt stray animals*
• Keith Talent, the problem is that the time period is a bit short (or might be, depending on those statistics). You go away for Memorial Day weekend, the house-sitter accidentally lets the cat out, you come back, call the humane society, and learn that the cat is dead. For example. Me, I have three proposals, at least one of them modest. The first one, very modest, is to sell the cats due for Euthanization to restaurants. I know, I know, but bear with me. Make sure that they have to put the proper ingredients on the menu (so they're not trying to pass cat off as chicken), and I think it would end up making money for the state rather than losing it. Second, more seriously, if a pet is brought in to a shelter, don't let it leave until it's been spayed or neutered. Don't perform the surgery immediately, of course, but if someone comes to claim the pet, say, "We'll return Fluffy after the surgery." The trick with that is ensuring that nobody can sue the state for damages because of the change in personality of the pet, or the loss of breeding ability. Yes, this will cause a sharp incline in costs for the short term, but I think it would quickly lower the incidents of stray pets, as the ones who get free regularly correllate both with pregnancy and getting brought in to the humane society. Studies would have to be done, however, to make sure I'm right. Third, mostly an addition to number 2, is to allow the owners to pay $1000 to avoid having their pet fixed. This will let breeders and people who really, really don't want their pet to be fixed to help solve the problem. I do own cats, and they are both fixed. I consider overpopulation to be a serious problem, and would like it corrected if possible.
• ... sell the cats due for Euthanization to restaurants. If it's cost effective/profitable then it sounds like a decent idea. But why just the cats?
• Sorry, I have cats, so that's what I was thinking. I meant 'pets'. Freudian slip.
• What I am really looking forward to is the campaign commercials when The Governor is up for reelection.
• Wow. This is the second big thing I've heard about. G.A. anyone? Well, all I can say about this is: f*ck arnie. There's a brand new animal shelter here in Sac that cost millions. Perhaps old buildings are unattractive, but that's no excuse to go having a prestigious architect design a friggin palace. Why even building the damn thing if it won't be used except as a blurb in the architect's portfolio? The money spent on that could have gone to events, public education, etc. etc. And who the hell thinks this kind of thing up in the first place, anyway? "Hmmm, we need money. Kill the animals!" Shit like this makes me so mad.... *eats a (, takes a walk*
• According to a documentary I once saw called "Gift Dogs", about dogs left at the Chicago Animal Shelter, there is not much hope for a lot of animals at these places. As much as I want to keep them alive, the chances that they will be "put down" are high. The head of the shelter stated that many people bring dogs in they don't want anymore with the assumption that the former pets will just find a new owner. More often then not the dogs are put to sleep. A good, but depressing short-film (couldn't find a link for it).
• 14 million is chump change. The state could save that much every year by switching to a cheaper brand of toilet paper.
• Okay, back and better. Here's a good article summing the whole thing up. And here's my summarization: Forget what I said before about the new shelter (although it's a terrible, terrible waste if this goes through). It has nothing to do with arnie. The pressure on local rescue groups, which is high already, would increase. My organization regularly gets calls from the shelter to come rescue adoptable animals that wouldn't go quickly enough at the shelter to survive. Most (if not all) rescue organizations are bursting at the seams, and this would make things so much worse. There's a solution, but it would take lots of work and dedication, and so on. I won't go over it here, I already have. These budget cuts are hitting Californian's in the worst possible places. Social programs have been taking some serious punches, and it puts a lot of people in jeopardy, such as my friend who works at a group home. Her staff got slashed because of funding, she was attacked by one of the too-many kids at the home, and suffered major injuries because there was only one other person there to help. There have to be better solutions. Like a hiring freeze. I haven't seen it slow down one iota. And... Oops. I gotta get off my soap box and get ready for an appointment. Are those sighs of relief I hear? ;o)
• I would prefer to read a news story about how Ahnold is going to use those Enron tapes with employees gleefully joking about how to screw California as evidence to back out of the outrageous contracts Davis was forced to sign. I betcha that would end up saving California a hell of a lot more than $14 million. Are there any such news stories out there?
• The Attorney General is going after Enron, but as far as I know Arnold hasn't said anything about it and still supports further deregulation. Meanwhile, House blocks Democrats from seeking larger refunds for power price gouging.
• But ... but ... what about the pets?
• 14 million is chump change. The state could save that much every year by switching to a cheaper brand of toilet paper. There have to be better solutions. Like a hiring freeze. Or maybe raising some taxes? Is it worthwhile to lose community services, just so everyone in the state can get $130 back at the end of the year? Better yet, how about closing some of the state tax loopholes for large corporations? If you profit, you should contribute to the well-being of the state where you do business. End of story. Sorry for the rant. I'm going to go soak my head in cold gin.
• shinything, I agree. I've mentioned a sales tax increase to friends before, something I will never do again. I nearly got lynched. I understand that people don't want to pay for the state's mistakes, and perhaps it really is a bad idea to do so, but we're in trouble, and need out. Perhaps if we had to spend money out of our own pockets, we'd be more careful in the future about who we vote into office, as well as how we vote on certain bills. As it is, killing even more homeless aminals each year, cutting our social programs away to nearly nothing, and letting our schools get crowded and inefficient doesn't hurt enough people. A big part of the problem is public education. Not nearly enough people (myself included) know enough about their government, what it does, why it's there, who does what, etc., to make an educated decision when voting. But that's not quite the point here. So, yes, shinything I agree with you completely. We may be paying for someone else's mistakes, but it looks like the only way out of this mess that will leave us somewhat intact.
• I just want to know if anyone peed on the cats.
• It's amazing how a person can believe in killing living things just to save a few dollars. This just shows how irrational most of American politics is (primarily the Republicans).
• "Gov Bow-Wows To Heat"
• Well, one solution to local taxes not contributing enough in Calif. would be to change proposition 13, which, way back in the 1970s, mandated that property taxes would not go up on homes until they were sold. Local governments have fudged that to whatever degree they could, but they haven't gone up much. And, since property taxes pay for local expenses like improving schools, Calif. has gone from the best educational system in the US to one one of the worst.
• Somebody say, "kittens"? I'm feeling a might peckish...
• $10,600,000,000 (The last years deficit in CA) -$14,000,000 (saved by Texanizing) $10,586,000,000 to go
• You guys and gals read the article wrong; it's $14,000,000 in savings per pet.
• Per pet? Fuckin' A, hand me a kitten and a syringe full of murder!
• Monekyfilter: hand me a kitten and a syringe full of murder!
• Let the truth be known!