« *Now* They Tell Us! | Main | Anti-Feminist Blames Men for "Enslaving Women", Destroying Human Race »

January 10, 2013

Coffee Snorters, Inbox Edition

The blog princess is swamped at work, but will try to get some posts up later today. Meanwhile, how about an open thread? (she said, with some trepidation, remembering the horror that was, "Ask Cassandra").

When the going gets tough, the tough resort to posting photos from their inboxes. This image from Retriever seems apropos:

DL Sly sent this a day or two ago. It amused us:

Finally, the Spousal Unit sent more photos of elephants. Here, one elephant is being groomed before the big show:

He said it was pretty funny to watch. First, the elephants were sprayed with water to clean them off. Then a huge blow dryer was used to dry off the elephant's skin (that's the leaf-blower looking thing being used in this photo). Finally, a fancy headdress was donned and the elephants trotted off to the big tent.

One elephant (he thinks it might have been the male) was kept separated from the rest of the elephants. He said it kept looking wistfully at the other elephants.

Posted by Cassandra at January 10, 2013 07:43 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4476

Comments

Careful.

PETA has it in mind, I hear, to publish a map of all registered animal abusers AND those amused by it.

Posted by: George Pal at January 10, 2013 11:08 AM

You know, on a serious note I have intentionally avoided reading up on the elephant abuse case because:

1. I get annoyed when I see bloggers misrepresenting the court's verdict as having disproved the abuse claim. From the little I understand, the court ruled that their star witness wasn't credible b/c he was paid beaucoup bucks to testify and further, had no standing to sue.

The court didn't rule on (or even examine) the merit of his claims:

Courts later found that the animal rights activists had paid a former Ringling barn helper involved in the lawsuit at least $190,000, making him "essentially a paid plaintiff" who lacked credibility.

Two courts agreed the former barn helper, Tom Rider, wasn't credible and didn't have a right to sue. As a result, they didn't address claims the circus violated the federal Endangered Species Act by allegedly chaining the elephants for long periods and allowing trainers to use sharp tools called bullhooks.

IOW, the court didn't even try to determine whether elephants were in fact abused. This amounts to a procedural victory, not a vindication.

2. I love elephants dearly. They are such intelligent animals and part of me doesn't want to even think about whether some of the claims might have some merit.

I hate the tactics of some animal rights orgs and think they sometimes take basically good arguments (we should not treat animals cruelly) to the absurd extreme. But as a lover of things pachydermal, the idea that anyone would abuse an elephant (or any living creature) makes me feel violent.

My neighbors adopted a dog whose owners set him on fire. He was the sweetest beastie one could ever imagine. So I am glad that someone is looking out for animals.

This was the right outcome, I think. If there is real abuse, the case should be easy to make without resorting to paying off witnesses. But I feel like a huge coward for not checking the facts out for myself.

/end pointless self flagellation :p

Posted by: Cassandra at January 10, 2013 11:25 AM

Oh, and I'm sorry I responded to your very funny quip with that bit of navel gazing, George :)

Estrogen spike...

Posted by: Cassandra at January 10, 2013 11:26 AM

Think nothing of it.

PETA wasn't involved in that case, was it? Either way, PETA has no standing with me. They have forfeited any claim to being taken seriously no matter how reasonably they may apply themselves to any situation given past inhumanity to humans (all of them theoretical and theatrical of course) stupidities.

Here, since you are already in the state.

http://www.alertadigital.com/2013/01/09/la-degradacion-de-francia-no-tiene-limite-un-artista-frances-pretende-matar-animales-en-el-centro-pompidou/

The first two paragraphs:

Animal right activists are demanding the banning of a bloody show in the famous French Centre Pompidou. The French artist Adel Abdessemed will end his exhibition in this museum by torturing animals.

The artist of Algerian origin will carry a cow, a calf, a pig, a goat and a sheep to the Centre Pompidou, which is one of the most famous museums of Paris, and he will smash them with a hammer till death to the sound of heavy (metal).

1st sentence of penultimate paragraph:

In spite of the important prestige and international recognition, many have doubts about the artistic value of Adel Abdessemed.

Where would the world be without 'doubts"?

Posted by: George Pal at January 10, 2013 01:18 PM


Sorry.

1st sentence of penultimate paragraph:

In spite of the important prestige and international recognition, many have doubts about the artistic value of Adel Abdessemed.

Posted by: George Pal at January 10, 2013 01:22 PM

Yikes. And I thought Harry Reid was a sick puppy...

Posted by: Cassandra at January 10, 2013 04:39 PM

D'oh! To answer your question, I think it was the ASPCA in the elephant case.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 10, 2013 04:41 PM

How can you tell when an elephant is wistful? If it was a male, and the others were females, it might just have been horny, or possesive. How can you tell the difference with elephants?


The Unit must be a very perceptive man. {:^)>

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at January 10, 2013 05:23 PM

Here's one to add to the coffee snorters.
*snnnicker*.
0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at January 11, 2013 02:17 PM

I love it!

He must be related to the Mad Squirrel who lives in my backyard. I need to get video of him - it's a real hoot :)

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2013 03:04 PM

The Unit must be a very perceptive man. {:^)>

He is, actually. I can't vouch for his ability to read elephants emotions from several floors up but he often surprises me with the things he notices. It's particularly odd in a guy who isn't much of a people person :p

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2013 03:07 PM

People person?

He commanded men when he was in the "deployed" phase of his career, so yeah, he's not a touchy-feely kind of people person, but a man's man, and probably a very shrewd judge of people and character. Able to make snap and accurate judgements all the time. His business was to command and lead people. Mainly male peoples, though.

I know you know that, just me refuting all that sort of conventional wisdom (and tugging your chain). Just be glad he's not a a people person like "Dr. Phil". {:^)>

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at January 11, 2013 06:36 PM

...probably a very shrewd judge of people and character. Able to make snap and accurate judgements all the time.

He is an exceptionally good judge of character, Don. Except for the moron he married lo! these many decades ago :p

When we were very young and newly married, I often secretly thought he judged people a bit harshly. I never said anything to him about it - it was just one of those thoughts you have briefly when you don't understand why someone else thinks the way they do.

Over the years, I learned that he's right more often than not about people.

And anyway, I like when you yank my chain :p

Posted by: Henpecked Anti-Feminist's Henpecked Husband at January 12, 2013 05:28 PM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)