Summertime Heat is rough on our canine companions too.

I did a quick search, as these cheesy infographics scream FAKE-ATTENTION-GRABBING-HEADLINE...

-However

     It does appear at least by a cursory search that these temperatures are indeed accurate. I personally would never walk my dog on asphalt, but I do recognize where sometimes it might be a necessity.

     One tip a lot of dog health sites agree on is this.
Place your hand on the asphalt for 10-30 seconds. If you can't keep your hand on it for that long, then the surface is too hot for the pads on a canine's feet.
If someone come across better info please share it and let me know.

     As always, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Not only will burns be traumatic to your pet, but traumatic to your wallet when you have to take them to the vet for treatment.

Cops Arrest Man in Animal Cruelty Case

     I am glad they have the person they believe to be responsible. My neighbor and I were just talking about this case a few hours ago, and we both were at a loss as to what would possess a person to do such a thing.
      

Many people are suggesting all sort of outrageous punishments for this man. 

I will hold my judgement.
 

     Do not mistake my comment. I do believe he should be punished, but as for the method I want to know why this happened. This man does have a criminal record, so there is a history of miscreant behavior.

• Did he do this in retribution to some imagined slight by a third party? 
• Was he just in the mood to be cruel? 
•  Was he high?

      Perhaps my ruminations on his reason would lead those reading this to think I imagine a scenario that excuses this. That is not farther from the truth. There is absolutely no excuse for this type of behavior ever.
      So why the interest in the underlying reason? Well, people are too quick to think of punishments. Many say "kill him". I don't know that taking his life is called for. He truly is a very messed up person, but will his death solve anything? Perhaps it is easier for me to ruminate over this as it was not my dog.
      I would like to see a more severe punishment than what is currently on the books. 5 years doesn't seem like enough. I would want a psychological review of this man to see what the fuck is broken in his head.
      As for punishment, I will not speculate. I am a very creative individual, but as you know what you type on the internet stays forever, and I would rather keep such dark thoughts to myself.
I am still outraged at this, but my years have given me wisdom that quick retribution is not always best. There are many types of hell a person can be put through worse than death. I will leave such thoughts to the imagination of you all. Karma will reach this man regardless of what punishment man metes out. I only wish I could be there to witness his accounting for his deeds when the time comes.

      I will end this on a positive note. To any of my FB friends that own a dog, (or any pet), and are struggling, please get help. Before any situation devolves into anything remotely like this talk to someone. If you have no one to talk to, at the very least surrender the dog to a shelter where it has a chance of finding a new home. There is no shame in realizing that the responsibility of another life might be too much for a person to handle.

Cops Arrest Man in Animal Cruelty Case 

'Articles' like this piss me off, or, The Ramblings of a Man Fed up with Fake "NEWS"

      I am sharing this in response to it appearing on my Facebook wall. For all who have read my original response, I thank you. For those who have not, please give it a minute of your time, as this topic keeps getting brought up.

Here are the comments from the OP on Facebook:
MASS exodus from Florida . . .
Highway I-95 and I-75 will be jammed for the next
month or so with druggies and deadbeats heading
North out of Florida, because this is the first state in the union to require drug testing to receive welfare.....

Hooray for Florida. In signing the new law, Republican
Gov. Rick Scott said, "If Floridians want welfare, they
better make sure they are drug-free."

Applicants must pay for the drug test, but are
reimbursed if they test drug-free. Applicants who test
positive for illicit substances, won't be eligible for the
funds for a year, or until they undergo treatment.
Those who fail a second time will be banned from
receiving funds for three years!

Naturally, a few people are crying this is
unconstitutional. How is this unconstitutional?
It's a legal requirement that every person applying
for a job has to pass drug tests in order to get the job,
why not those who receive welfare?

Forward this if you agree!
Let's get welfare back to the ones who
need it, in Canada, Australia and New
Zealand, not to those who won't get a job.
I AGREE !

Here are my original posting comments:

      'Articles' like this piss me off. Why? Because they are knee-jerk "hot button" issues meant to grab attention and nothing else. Do I think drug testing should be done on welfare recipients?
-Sporadically.
-Why?
 Here's some actual data on a pilot program:

http://thinkAhttp://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/02/10/

      Now, the short version is this: 0.2 That's right. two-tenths of one percent. According to the research, that's well below Tennessee's drug usage rate of 8% for ALL people.
So, in conclusion, all of the pulpit banging on this issue is mostly bullshit. If testing is done, IMHO this is how it should be.
      Once every (x) years a random panel of recipients in a set area is tested. There should be (x) numbers of areas per state based on population density.
IF the results of the test show usage of welfare recipients in a give are to be equal or higher than the average usage of ALL people for the area, then testing should be increased in frequency until the numbers drop.
      Why this approach? Because as a country we waste too much damn money on programs that make no difference other than pander to a political base.
In the case study for Tennessee, we see that a regular testing schedule would be a monumental waste of taxpayer's money.
      So, we should balance the need for testing against recorded rates.
More data is needed to give a comprehensive result for each state. Articles like the one in this post are the worst kind as they are outright lies, and offer near nothing of value to the reader.
-Oh right, this isn't an article. Its a picture with a comment with no supporting evidence, no author, no point but to incite anger period.

      As a matter of fact, the heralded Gov Rick Scott mentioned in this picture has given up on trying to test welfare recipients in Florida.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…/florida-welfare-drug-

     According to the article: The ACLU challenged the law on behalf of Luis Lebron, an Orlando Navy veteran and single father who refused to submit to a urine test. The 11th Circuit found that only about 2.6 percent of Florida welfare applicants failed the drug test during the four months the law was in effect, almost half for marijuana use." Yep, 2.6 percent. So, why am I so mad? Because bullshit opinion pieces like this picture try to pass themselves off as legitimate news/information and mislead people I respect with lies and misinformation.
Educate yourselves people. Google is your friend. Fact-check, question, and learn."

Note- I'm still working out formatting and grammar issues. (I need a better editor than the generic one that Blogspot uses) I also don't know yet if it is possible to link the original comments from the responses I got on FB. I'll see if I can link the post here.
I'm in the process of re-blogging some of my more lengthy Facebook posts and responses here as the lack of formatting on Facebook is driving my OCD to dark places.