Chevilott, took the gun home and later went to the police station to turn it in. He was later fired because of a policy the county has that states it’s illegal for employees to possess a gun while on work property.

If this isn’t bizarre enough, Chevilott’s supervisor, who was aware of the situation, was suspended for 30 days.

Chevilott was 2 years shy of retirement. What was the real motivation here?

Tom Remington

Hypocrisy reveals myriad things in a society, one of which is the manifestation of people’s incompetency to make legitimate judgements about much of anything worthwhile. Hypocrisy is dishonesty and when we exemplify that we are also showing the world our anger and hatred, all of which drives our bias.

A current example playing out in this nation is the joke telling dealing with the topic of President Barack Obama’s revelation that when he was a kid growing up in Indonesia he ate dog. Do rational people care about this beyond the obvious, that either the president’s family was poor and that’s all they could afford or eating dog was acceptable table fare?

Even though I think we as a people are losing our ability to laugh, I still believe that existing in a society that considers laughing healthy, we have always had a strong yen for humor. Once, every comedian and late night talk show host made gobs of money telling jokes about presidents. We all laughed no matter who was in the White House. Of course some presidents became better targets of the quipsters, mostly dependent upon what they did or said. I even recall impersonators like Rich Little, who struggled to impersonate some presidents and then got plenty of mileage from others, sometimes by just the simple way they looked or the tone and quality of their voice. Think of the actor John Wayne, who had a distinct walk and a voice to go with it.

Today, people too often tend to limit their laughter based on political bias. This is where the hypocrisy comes into play. A joke about George Bush may make some laugh and others not, taking offense that they are being made fun of or that somehow it’s not fair. If the same comedian told a joke about Barack Obama, the roles become reversed. Don’t misunderstand me here. This hypocrisy swings in all directions and the worst kind is that coming from those who refuse to recognize it for what it is.

Let’s also be honest, if that’s possible anymore. Barack Obama is half black and half white. We have struggled as a society to get beyond racism and bigotry and as such, I’m positive in my assessment that a lot of restraint has been shown in targeting Barack Obama for jokes out of fear of just what has happened; accusations of racism.

President Obama ate dog as a child. What’s wrong with that? I’ve written about eating dog in our history and that eating dog is still the cuisine of some societies. When President Jefferson sent Captains Lewis and Clark to find a passage to the Pacific Ocean, neither of the men or their expedition would have survived had they not eaten dog. But as humans, we are prone to make jokes about it, I think some because we are uncomfortable with talking about the subject, but mostly because humor defines us.

On the website The People’s Cube, an entire array of photoshopped pictures depicting President Obama eating or chasing after dogs with the intent of eating them, can be found.

On John McCain’s Twitter page he posted a photo of his son’s bull dog and ends his Tweet by saying, “I’m sorry Mr. President, he’s not on the menu!”

When asked at a press conference, White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney, struggled to answer the question as to whether the President was aware of all the jokes but he couldn’t resist making a joke about the jokes.

If you click on the link to John McCain’s Twitter page, you can read some of the comments irate people left to John McCain about his sick sense of humor.

But what about the hypocrisy? Recall, if you will, that not long ago, there were a lot of people very upset about the movie “The Grey”. Two issues played out here. The movie was about a plane that crashed in the middle of nowhere in Alaska. Survival was key, i.e. finding food and prevent becoming food. The plot is about these survivors fending off a hungry pack of wolves. The first issue of outrage was that the makers of the movie dared depict wolves in a truthful setting; that they are bloodthirsty killers. The second issue is that the wolves they killed, they ate.

Hang on for a second. This is a movie! But yet there was still outrage. In addition, before filming of the movie began, the cast and staff tried eating some wolf meat in order to gain a better understanding of what they were up against. Doing so has “dogged” them ever since. (See what I mean?)

The point is there was outrage over this and I recall reading in several places among the media outlets, including Online, that people just did not eat dog. That our society (American) has never eaten dog, etc. etc. etc. This is what prompted me to dig back through the Lewis and Clark Expedition journals to recount all the times they not only ate dog meat buy preferred it over deer or elk. In addition this dog meat they ate, included domestic dogs they bought from the natives and coyotes and wolves they were able to kill during their journey.

The hypocrisy here is that while there was outrage that dogs were depicted as being eaten in a movie, there was no outrage at the disclosure that President Obama actually did eat dog as a kid. Instead, their biased anger is directed at those who chose to make jokes about it, seemingly now supporting the eating of dog….well, depending upon who did the eating I guess.

One can argue that most of these jokes originated from people or organizations that are working to elect a different president, but why is this all of a sudden different or deserve a different level of scrutiny? Campaigns bring out the worst in everybody.

What the reasons are that President Obama ate dog as a kid, I don’t know, nor do I care. I think some of the jokes are funny. I find some a bit over the top. I certainly can understand a person who adores dogs, finding offense in some of these photos and jokes. And I find the same level of humor disseminated the same way regardless of which side of the political aisle they walk on.

Tom Remington

This video is so bad, it deserves the rare and not so coveted, Black Bear Blog Golden Horse Excrement Award.

I kid you not.

I’m not exactly sure why anyone would want to “dye or artificially color” an animal; except on those occasions that I’ve known ranchers to spray paint part of their livestock so people won’t shoot them. Here is a classic example of how perverted the animal rights whack-a-doodles are. We have a society in which men and women for decades now have dyed their hair for vanity’s sake and where mostly the young generation regularly colors, dyes, spray paints, etc. their hair, in addition to injecting dyes into their skin to create tattoos and people want to create laws that prohibit dying or coloring an animal. I wonder how many of the brainless creatures who crafted these “model laws” have body piercings, tattoos or dye and/or color their body hair?

We got it together now haven’t we?

Wolves are opportunistic hunters. In other words, they take what they can when they can. That isn’t to say that a wolf isn’t smart enough to recognize a badly limping deer or elk and from a few years experience has learned that they are easier to catch. However, the idiots who perpetuate the dishonest fable about killing only the crippled and sickly, present their theory to people in a manner that leads them to believe that wolves are so highly evolved intellectually, they always are aware that they are killing only those animals that “need” to be killed to keep a healthy prey species for next time.

The question I have is this. We have learned that wolves carry echinococcus granulosus worms and pass this on to elk, deer and moose. We’ve also discovered that when this occurs, hydatid cysts develop, sometimes very large ones, in the lungs, the result of which can seriously restrict an ungulate’s ability to escape the danger of predators. Are these same highly intelligent wolves capable of diagnosing hydatid cysts where highly skilled human doctors cannot?

In a recent news article in the Kansas City Star, a woman who represents the Defenders of Wildlife in the Northern Rockies where overblown populations of wolves exist, made the following statements. (Warning: If you are eating or drinking, please clear mouth and throat before reading.)

“In some ways wolves are benefitting elk in that they’re the only predator that actually culls disease and other illnesses from those herds,” Stone said. “So genetically over time, wolves actually improve the overall health of elk populations.

“So the wolves should maybe be charging Idaho for their services.”

The wolves are doing such a good job, it appears they are taking no chances. Probably due to fear, the wolves are killing all elk just to make sure they haven’t left any diseased or lame animals behind.

This person needs a rubber room. It’s this kind of crap sandwich that gets shared so often in the media that people actually believe this stuff to have truth in it. Not one word uttered here is factual. Not one! I say let’s bring in a half dozen of these wolves, give them a stethoscope and a white robe and put them to work “culling diseases” from humans.

I don’t like to place photos or cartoon sketches of other people’s work on my websites without permission. However, in the Critter News about a week ago, there appeared the below cartoon. The author’s name and signature are on it. Having seen this cartoon, I thought it only appropriate that I share this with others and perhaps if someone knows Ms. Stone, who promotes disease-killing wolves, she would appreciate a copy as well.

Target: Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations

Goal: Promote animal welfare on a global basis by officially adopting a declaration that recognizes animals as sentient beings and takes into account their overall safety.

Despite the strong support, there is no internationally recognized agreement that concerns the welfare of all animals on the planet. Many activists and animal rights groups are hoping to change this by putting the pressure on the United Nations (U.N.) to formally adopt the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare (UDAW).

First and foremost, the UDAW will see to it that all animals are considered sentient beings—capable of thinking and knowing the pains of suffering. Once this is established, the stage would be set for future legislation which could do wonders on behalf of animals. Governments would be encouraged to improve already existing animal rights and welfare legislation, businesses will have to take into account their policies on animals and animal-driven work; and perhaps most importantly, peoples’ attitudes and relationships towards the animals will change as common ground is established between all species.

<<<Read the entire piece>>>